To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

i
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 0v
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 01
Literature Review and Research Questions .................................................................................. 03
Measuring Communicator Style ............................................................................................. 03
Communicator Style and Perceived Effectiveness (RQ1) ...................................................... 04
Communicator Style and Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) .............................................. 06
Communicator Style and Sex (RQ3) ...................................................................................... 06
Communicator Style and Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ........................................................... 07
Communicator Style and Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ........................................................................ 08
Methods........................................................................................................................................ 09
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness (RQ1) ........................................... 12
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) ...... 15
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach (RQ3) ................................................. 15
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal/Team Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ................. 17
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Athlete Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ............................................ 19
Data Tables ............................................................................................................................. 20
Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 37
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness (RQ1) ........................................... 37
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) ...... 40
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach (RQ3) ................................................. 41
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal/Team Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ................. 45 ii
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Athlete Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ............................................ 46
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 47
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 48
Practical Applications ................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 51
References .................................................................................................................................... 64
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 1.2 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable Pairs ................................ 21
Table 1.3 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach
Communicator Image............................................................................................ 22
Table 2.1 One-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS and Coach-Athlete
Relationship Length .............................................................................................. 23
Table 2.2 One-Way ANOVA Results for Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete
Relationship Length .............................................................................................. 24
Table 3.1 Independent t-Test Results for Perceived Coach CS and Sex of the Coach ......... 25
Table 3.2 Independent t-Test Results for Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach .......... 26
Table 4.1 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal
Performance .......................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Team
Performance .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.1a Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 29
Table 5.1b Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 30
Table 5.2a Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 31
Table 5.2b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 32 iv
Table 5.3a Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 33
Table 5.3b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 34
Table 5.4a Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-
Leaving” and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................... 35
Table 5.4b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-
Leaving and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) .......................... 36
v
Abstract
This purpose of this study was to explore the influence of coach communicator style (CS) on athletes. Of consideration was how athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS differ with respect to athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, and sex of the coach. Correla-tions between athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS with respect to athlete percep-tion of coach effectiveness, and athlete perception of personal and team performance were also examined. Study participants were female athletes on the fall 2013 rosters of collegiate volley-ball programs within the State of Utah. An online survey was used to gather athlete responses. Perceptions of and preferences for Coach CS were measured using a shortened version a com-municator style construct developed by Robert W. Norton. The study yielded a number of sig-nificant findings, including: 1) communication styles athletes associate with coach effectiveness, 2) communication styles athletes associate with coaches who are good communicators, 3) the significance of attentive, friendly, contentious, and dramatic communication style variables, and 4) differences in perception of and preference for coach CS between athletes coached by males and those coached by females. Additional significant findings were shown for CS and: athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, athlete performance, and team performance. The study discusses the implications of these findings, outlines areas of possible future research, and sug-gests several practical applications for coaches. 1
Introduction
Coaches have a profound influence on collegiate student-athletes. A primary objective of collegiate coaches is to assist athletes in achieving success in the athletic arena (Mallett & Côté, 2006). But given the nature of the coach-athlete relationship, a coach’s influence often extends much further than the court or playing field (Turman, 2003). Coach communication impacts not only athletic performance, but also shapes an athlete’s self-concept, life skills, character, and values. In fact, some messages communicated by coaches continue to influence athletes long af-ter the circumstances in which they are delivered (Kassing & Pappas, 2007). Memorable coach communications are often glorified on film screens while others are vilified in news reports. Most fall between the extremes – they may hit the mark, be rejected, overlooked, or misinter-preted. Verbatim content is an important component of effective coach communication, but it is not the only factor. Norton (1978) suggests that the style in which communication is delivered has an important role in message impact. Norton defines “communicator style” (CS) as “the way one verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpret-ed, filtered, or understood” (p. 99). Thus, CS provides athletes additional information about what a coach is trying to say.
In the United States in 2012, volleyball was ranked as the second largest intercollegiate sport for women behind basketball in numbers of colleges and universities that sponsor these programs (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported 1,047 sponsored female volleyball teams in Divisions I, II, and III with 15,890 total par-ticipating athletes in 2011-2012. They also reported that of the major collegiate team sports in the United States, volleyball is the largest predominantly female sport (NCAA, 2012). 2
The sport is highly popular at the high school and junior club levels as well. The Nation-al Federation of State High School Associations reported 420,208 female high school partici-pants in volleyball in 2012-13 (“2012-13 High School Athletics Participation Survey Results”). USA Volleyball (USAV) reported 214,376 junior level members registered in 2012 (“2012 Cor-porate Report”). USAV female volleyball teams have enjoyed success on the world stage, both at the junior and senior levels. USAV reported that the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) ranked United States female youth/junior volleyball teams, No. 3 in the world as of Au-gust 22, 2011, and the U.S. women’s national team, No. 1 as of January 4, 2012 (“2011 Fact Sheet”). Six of the 10 medals won in 2011 by U.S. national indoor volleyball teams during in-ternational competition were won by female teams, including the only two gold medals won that year by USAV indoor teams (“2011 Fact Sheet”). Despite the popularity and increase in num-bers of female collegiate volleyball teams and athletes, the percentage of females coaching them has decreased. In 1978, 86.6% of women’s programs were coached by females. By 2012, this number had dropped to 53.3% (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Due to its popularity and the chang-ing dynamic of female head coaches, volleyball presents a unique and interesting context for re-searchers interested in communication studies.
Montgomery and Norton (1981) suggest that, “Understanding the perceptions of one’s own and others’ behavior may be as vital to the explanation of the communication process as is the behavior itself” (p. 122). By exploring athletes’ perceptions of coach CS, this descriptive study seeks to uncover areas of interest that merit more focused research in the future. It is hoped that the findings from this study will ultimately benefit student-athletes by encouraging coaches to better understand the impact of how they communicate. Two reasons for doing so seem particularly persuasive: 1) the potential of coach communication to facilitate either, growth 3
and achievement or something less, and 2) the ability of a communicator to consciously change and adapt communicator style (Norton & Nussbaum, 1980). It seems fitting for coaches as well as scholars and professionals in all areas of endeavor, to consider communication studies as an area of focus alongside discipline-specific technical training (Condra & Hudson, 1996; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
Literature Review and Research Questions
Measuring communicator style.
The development of Norton’s CS construct was influenced, in part, by the concept that, “Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former, and is therefore a metacommunication” (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967, p. 54; see also Norton, 1983). In other words, there is both a literal message, and an element that indi-cates how that message should be understood. The CS construct is operationalized by ten style variables emerging from current and prior research of the time (Norton, 1983). These variables include: Dominant, Friendly, Attentive, Relaxed, Contentious, Dramatic, Animated, Open, and Impression-Leaving. Communicator Image is included in the construct as a dependent variable for evaluating communication proficiency (Norton, 1978). Appendix A (p. 51) lists brief de-scriptive paragraphs for each of the ten variables taken from an earlier CS study by Norton and Pettegrew (1977).
Bednar and Brandenburg (1984) note that research has proved the communicator style construct and its style sub-constructs to be both reliable and valid. The construct has been used in a variety of research contexts and situations including: style differences of male and female managers (Baird & Bradley, 1979); style differences based on sex of student respondents (Mont-gomery & Norton, 1981); style and sales performance (Dion & Notarantonio, 1992); style inher-4
itance in identical and fraternal twins (Horvath, 1995); and the role of style in staff interactions in both a hospital and insurance agency (Bednar, 1982). Many CS related studies have been conducted in the instructional context: teacher effectiveness in collegiate management courses (Bednar & Brandenburg, 1984); student achievement and preferences for teacher style (Potter & Emanuel, 1990); perceptions of teacher style and effectiveness as perceived by undergraduate and non-traditional college students (Comadena, Semlak & Escott, 1992); perception of style and teacher evaluation (Scott & Nussbaum, 1981); and style and student learning, (Andersen, Norton & Nussbaum, 1981). The use of the construct is not entirely foreign to studies of coach CS. Gordon (1987) used the measure to analyze the communication style of a successful collegiate volleyball coach.
Despite evidence of the influence of CS scholars remain divided on the extent of its in-fluence or how it should be defined and measured (Potter & Emanuel, 1990; Sallinen-Kuparinen, 1992; Henning, 2010).
Communicator style and perceived effectiveness.
In her review of research findings on teacher CS, Sallinen-Kuparinen (1992) notes: “Em-pirical evidence suggests that among a number of teacher characteristics, communicator style – constitutes a crucial factor in the teaching-learning process.” The author continues, “Further-more, research suggests that teacher communicator style significantly mediates student learning” (p. 153). Using Norton’s (1978) CS construct to examine student perceptions of teaching effec-tiveness within collegiate management courses, Bednar and Brandenburg (1984) found an asso-ciation between particular CS variables and teacher effectiveness categories. Scott and Nuss-baum (1981) found an association between student evaluations of instructor performance with self-disclosure and CS. Andersen, Norton, and Nussbaum (1981) found no significant relation-5
ship between CS and cognitive learning. However, the authors did find that teacher CS did relate to student perceptions of teacher effectiveness and the affective learning of students.
While teaching effectiveness has been explored often using Norton’s construct, CS has been less examined in the context of coaching effectiveness within athletics. Scholars suggest that coach effectiveness, especially for those who work with elite athletes, has many dimensions (Turman, 2008) and is best measured by a process that draws upon the perceptions of coaches and athletes, along with empirical observations and measures (Mallett & Côté, 2006). The au-thors suggest that, particularly in the case of coaching elite athletes, there are many factors influ-encing performance that lie outside a coach’s control. Therefore, win/loss records alone are not an accurate reflection of a coach’s effectiveness. Mallett and Côté (2006) reference a study by Lyle (2002) in which the work of coaching high-caliber athletes is contrasted with the work of coaching those who merely desire to participate in sports: “Performance or high performance coaching” they describe as involving “higher levels of commitment, more stable coach-athlete relationships, and greater focus on medium- to long-term planning, monitoring, decision-making, and management skills to facilitate control of performance variables” (p. 213). Within the do-main of sport psychology, several instruments have been developed to more accurately reflect the dimensional nature of effective coaching. The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) of Chelladu-rai and Saleh (1980) is one instrument that covers five areas related to effective coaching behav-iors: “Training and Instruction, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support and, Positive Feedback” (p. 34). The Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S) developed by Côté et al. (1999) addresses the dimensions of: “Technical Skills, Goal Setting, Mental Preparation, Personal Rapport, Physical Training and Planning, and Negative Personal Rapport” (p. 82). Due to the descriptive nature of the present study, the need for a concise survey instrument, and in an 6
attempt to more closely mirror the method of Bednar and Brandenburg (1984), athlete perception of coach effectiveness was measured with four Likert survey questions that each addressed a dif-ferent facet of effectiveness: technical aspects of the game, non-technical aspects of the game, ef-fectiveness in developing a winning program in general, and effectiveness during the fall 2013 season.
RQ 1: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to perceived coach effectiveness?
Communicator style and relationship length.
Turman (2003) found that athlete preferences for coach CS varied over time and degree of established relationship with the coach. The author’s longitudinal study revealed that athletes were much more tolerant of, and even preferred, “negative coaching strategies” (p. 82), or domi-nant, authoritarian and critical communication styles, later in a competitive season as opposed to the beginning of the season. The author suggested that the shift in preference was due to a de-gree of comfortableness and trust that athletes had developed with the coach through the season. With this in mind, the present study examined whether perception of coach CS and preferences for style variables were reported by athletes with a more established relationship with their coach (over multiple competitive seasons in this case) as opposed to those whose coach-athlete rela-tionship is of a shorter duration.
RQ 2a: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to the length of the coach-athlete relationship?
RQ 2b: How does preferred coach communicator style vary with respect to the length of the coach-athlete relationship?
Communicator style and sex. 7
Hastie (1993) found that high school age female volleyball athletes completing the LSS indicated differences in one of the five dimensions of leadership, based on the sex of their coach, but no differences for the other four dimensions. In their study of the similarities and differences of perceptions of CS of males and females, Montgomery and Norton (1981) found that both sex-es associate similar communication behaviors with both men and women they consider to be ef-fective communicators. However, Baird and Bradley (1979) found a number of differences in employee perceptions of the communication styles of males and females in managerial roles. Carli (2006) notes differences in communication related to stereotypical gender styles, but that these differences can be subject to “situational factors” (p. 71) including the gender makeup of groups in which communication takes place, and the power bases of those involved. The present study examined differences in perceptions of coach CS between those female athletes with male and those with female head coaches.
RQ 3: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to the sex of the head coach?
Communicator style and performance.
Individual athlete or team performance levels are often considered synonymous with coach effectiveness. However, while the two are interdependent, they are not necessarily inter-changeable. Coach effectiveness is contingent on multiple factors – including athlete and team performance. Athlete and team performance are likewise dependent on multiple factors – one being coach effectiveness. This study examined whether a relationship exists between athlete perceptions of coach CS and their perceptions of their personal performance and team perfor-mance. 8
Within the context of the classroom, Potter and Emanuel (1990) did not find a significant correlation between teacher CS and student achievement. However, in an examination of factors affecting performance by Olympic athletes, Orlick and Partington (1988) found that coach be-haviors, including message content and style of delivery, can have both positive and negative ef-fects on Olympic athlete performance. In this study, athlete perception of team and individual performance were each measured by a single Likert survey question (see Appendix D, p. 62).
RQ 4a: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete per-ception of their personal performance?
RQ 4b: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete per-ception of team performance?
Communicator style and age.
Comadena, Semlak, and Escott (1992) examined teacher CS and effectiveness in the col-lege classroom with traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional adult students. They found that 43% of the variation in perceived teacher effectiveness among traditional undergradu-ates was due to teacher CS, with 64% among non-traditional students. The authors also found that both groups of students characterized teacher effectiveness using different CS variables. The authors concluded that younger students do not consider CS as important an aspect of a teacher’s effectiveness than do older students. Athlete age has been shown to be a factor in how athletes interpret coach feedback (Horn, 2002), and in the effectiveness of coach feedback (Magill, 1994). However, Hastie (1995) found that athlete age did not predict preferences for coach effectiveness variables in any of the five dimensions of the LSS. The present study exam-ined whether younger athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS varies from that of older athletes. 9
RQ 5a: Within groups of athletes with the same length of coach-athlete relationship, how does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete age?
RQ 5b: Within groups of athletes with the same length of coach-athlete relationship, how does preferred coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete age?
Methods
Within the population of female collegiate volleyball players in the United States, a sam-pling frame was used of student-athletes competing at institutions of higher education within the State of Utah. The sampling frame provided a target sample of 173 athletes competing at 11 dif-ferent institutions - 90 athletes from six total programs with female head coaches and 83 athletes from five total programs with male head coaches. Basic demographics of these programs are given in Appendix B (p. 52). It was hoped that the researcher’s personal acquaintance with many of the program coaches would offset the risk of low sample numbers due to the fixed na-ture of the target sample.
Ten head coaches (N = 6 male, N = 4 female) and one athletic director (male, on behalf of a female head coach) were contacted as gatekeepers to solicit athlete participation in the study. Seven agreed to forward the survey email to their athletes (N = 4 male, N = 3 female), three de-clined to have their athletes participate (N = 2 male, N = 1 female) citing concerns of confidenti-ality or survey participation fueling discord within the team. One coach never responded (fe-male). This represents a 64% participation rate for head coach gatekeepers. Survey response rates of athletes from the seven participating programs was 43% (N = 48 actual participants; N = 112 prospective participants). The response rate from prospective athletes from all eleven pro-grams (N = 173) was 28%. Numbers of survey responses per program for the seven participating programs were: 11, 10, 10, 7, 6, 3, 1, and one incomplete response that did not list any demo-10
graphic information. Over twice as many responses were received from athletes with male head coaches 69% (N = 33) than female head coaches 31% (N = 15). For athletes with male head coaches this represents a 51% response rate for athletes from participating programs (37% re-sponse rate for all prospective participants with male head coaches); and a 32% response rate for participating athletes with female head coaches (18% response rate for all prospective partici-pants with female head coaches). Survey response rates by athlete age: eighteen year olds 38% (N = 18), nineteen year olds 28% (N = 13), twenty year olds 26% (N = 12), twenty-one year olds 6% (N = 3), twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-four year olds (N = 0), twenty-five years old or older 2% (N = 1), with age undeclared for two responses. Response rates by academic class year: freshman 62% (N = 29), sophomore 13% (N = 6), junior 23% (N = 11), senior 2% (N = 1), with class year undeclared for two responses. Response rates by length coach-athlete relation-ship: one year 64% (N = 30), two years 17% (N = 8), three years 13% (N = 6), four years 2% (N = 1), five or more years 4% (N = 2), with relationship length undeclared for two responses. A mandatory pre-survey certification question screened for only those prospective participants who were at least 18 years old and had been listed on the fall 2013 roster of one of the eleven colle-giate women’s volleyball programs within the State of Utah.
Following the conclusion of the fall 2013 women’s volleyball season (roughly two weeks after the NCAA DI women’s volleyball national championship), the gatekeepers of the target programs were contacted, via email, to request their assistance with the research study. The email (see Appendix C, p. 53) contained a brief description of the study and a link to an online survey. Coaches were asked to forward the email containing the survey link to all athletes on their fall 2013 roster. Coaches were also asked to follow-up with a text message to alert their athletes to the survey email and encourage participation. Later in January 2014, the head coach-11
es were contacted again, with a request to send a second text message to their athletes to remind and encourage them to participate in the survey if they had not yet done so. The survey was to be closed after January 31, but was left open through February 28, 2014 to accommodate several coaches who had been delayed in contacting their athletes.
The survey (see Appendix D, p. 54) was created in Google Docs and consisted of four sections: (1) Survey description, researcher contact and informed consent information, and pre-survey certification question, (2) Likert survey questions regarding the athlete perception of their head coach’s communicator style, (3) Likert survey questions regarding the athlete’s preferred coach communicator style, and (4) Likert survey questions as to athlete perception of personal performance, team performance and coach effectiveness, and nominal survey questions to gather demographic information such as: institutional affiliation, sex of the head coach, athlete aca-demic class, length of athlete-coach relationship (number of competitive season played for the head coach both in club and college), and athlete age.
Communicator styles included in the survey questions were based on a short version of Norton’s communicator style construct (see Appendix A, p. 51). Each of the ten CS variables was described with a brief paragraph (Norton & Pettegrew, 1977; see also Baird & Bradley, 1979; Bednar, 1982; Montgomery & Norton, 1981; Norton, 1983) followed by a Likert survey question. In their study of how perception of the CS of others varies with respect to one’s own, Norton and Miller (1975) used the same instrument for both CS measures. Similarly, this study used the same CS instrument for measuring perceived and preferred coach CS.
The survey was pilot-tested by two former student athletes and two coaches for time de-mands and clarity. It was estimated that the entire survey process would take participants 10-15 12
minutes. The survey data was automatically tabulated by Google Docs into a spreadsheet format and imported into SPSS for analysis on the researcher’s password protected computer.
Participant names were not collected. Institutional affiliations were requested simply to enable follow-up requests with those programs for which no survey participation was apparent. This was helpful in boosting response numbers as two of the coaches had experienced technical difficulties and two others needed additional encouragement to participate. Once the survey data had been imported into SPSS, institutional names were replaced with random letter codes for da-ta analysis.
An online format for the survey was preferred for several reasons: convenience both for the researcher and participants, a better fit for the sample which was geographically dispersed, cost effectiveness, brief turnaround time in terms of data collection, and participant anonymity. The major drawbacks of the format in regard to this study were: risk of non-participation, as well as incomplete surveys.
There were several ways that compliance with the survey was encouraged. It was felt that, with the assistance and encouragement of head coaches, athletes would be more inclined to participate. The participation of coaches as gatekeepers was encouraged through an offer by the researcher of a brief summary of the study findings in aggregate once the study had been com-pleted. Additionally, with the help of pilot-testing, every effort was made to keep the survey us-er-friendly, interesting, and brief.
Results
Perceived coach CS and perceived coach effectiveness.
RQ1 examined correlations between athlete perception of coach CS and perception of coach effectiveness. Coach effectiveness was measured by averaging the scores from four sepa-13
rate survey questions. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with statements of their coach’s effectiveness in four areas: technical skills, non-technical skills, developing a winning team in general, and during the fall 2013 season (see Appendix D, p. 61). Responses were rec-orded on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The mean was calculated for the sum of each respondent’s four scores to obtain an overall average for percep-tion of effectiveness. A correlation test was used to determine relationships between athlete av-erage perception of coach effectiveness and athlete perception of head coach communicator style as represented by the ten separate CS variables (Communicator Image included as an independ-ent CS variable).
Eight of the ten CS variables were found to have a significant correlation with athlete perception of coach effectiveness: Attentive (p = .000, r = .749), Communicator Image (p = .000, r = .738), Friendly (p = .000, r = .610), Dominant (p = .000, r = .482), Open (p = .002, r = .441), Impression-Leaving (p = .004, r = .405), Animated (p = .021, r = .328), and Contentious (p = .030, r = -.313). Table 1.1 (p. 20) lists the ten style variables along with the associated correla-tion coefficients, coefficients of determination, and significance levels. Attentive (r2 = .561) and Communicator Image (r2 = .545) had moderate correlations with coach effectiveness. Friendly (r2 = .372) and Dominant (r2 = .232) had low correlations. Open (r2 = .194), Impression-Leaving (r2 = .164), Animated (r2 = .108), and Contentious (r2 = .098) had slight correlations with coach effectiveness. Relaxed and Dramatic had no significant correlation with coach effectiveness.
Additional significant correlations were found between the nine independent CS style variable pairs. Pairs with positive correlations were: Attentive and Friendly (p = .000, r = .731), Animated and Dominant (p = .000, r = .543), Open and Friendly (p = .000, r = .535), Relaxed and Friendly (p = .000, r = .521), Impression-Leaving and Friendly (p = .000, r = .504), Impres-14
sion-Leaving and Attentive (p = .000, r = .484), Open and Attentive (p = .001, r = .447), Impres-sion-Leaving and Open (p = .001, r = .444), Relaxed and Attentive (p = .006, r = .385), Dramatic and Dominant (p = .029, r = .312), and Impression-Leaving and Relaxed (p = .037, r = .298). Those negatively correlated were: Contentious and Attentive (p = .001, r = -.467), Contentious and Friendly (p = .001, r = -.463), Contentious and Impression-Leaving (p = .005, r = -.399), Dramatic and Attentive (p = .021, r = -.329), and Dramatic and Friendly (p = .036, r = -.300). Table 1.2 (p. 21) lists the correlation coefficients and significance values for the variable pair-ings. Of the positively correlated variable pairs, Attentive and Friendly (r2 = .534) were moder-ately correlated. Animated and Dominant (r2 = .295), Open and Friendly (r2 = .286), Relaxed and Friendly (r2 = .271), Impression-Leaving and Friendly (r2 = .254), Impression-Leaving and Attentive (r2 = .234), and Open and Attentive (r2 = .200) all had low correlations. Impression-Leaving and Open (r2 = .197) Relaxed and Attentive (r2 = .148), Dramatic and Dominant (r2 = .097), and Impression-Leaving and Relaxed (r2 = .089) had slight correlations. Of the negatively correlated CS variable pairs, Contentious and Attentive (r2 = .218), and Contentious and Friendly (r2 = .214) had low correlations. Impression-Leaving and Contentious (r2 = .159), Dramatic and Attentive (r2 = .108), and Dramatic and Friendly (r2 = .09) all had slight correlations. Twenty of the thirty-six CS variable pairings (56%) showed no significant correlation.
Correlations were also examined between Communicator Image (dependent variable) and the nine independent CS variables. Communicator Image was found to significantly correlate with: Attentive (p = .000, r = .755), Friendly (p = .000, r = .737), Impression-Leaving (p = .000, r = .576), Open (p = .000, r = .540), Relaxed (p = .016, r = .342), Dominant (p = .041, r = .292), and Contentious (p = .001, r = -.446). Table 1.3 (p. 22) lists the correlation coefficients and sig-nificance values. Attentive (r2 = .570) and Friendly (r2 = .543) correlated moderately with 15
Communicator Image. Impression-Leaving (r2 = .332) and Open (r2 = .292) had a low correla-tion. Relaxed (r2 = .117) and Dominant (r2 = .085) had a slight correlation. Contentious had a low and negative correlation with Communicator Image (r2 = .199). Dramatic and Animated had no significant correlation with Communicator Image.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and coach-athlete relationship length.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test RQ2a which examined dif-ferences in perception of coach CS for athletes with five categories of coach-athlete relationship length. Length of relationship was measured by a nominal survey question asking athletes to se-lect from 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5+ seasons they had played for their head coach. Athletes were asked to include club seasons as well as collegiate seasons in order to more accurately reflect true length of relationship. Evidence of only one statistically significant difference between the five groups resulted from these tests, that of athlete perception of the style variable – Dominant (p = .028, F = 3.025). Table 2.1 (p. 23) lists the nine style variables tested along with sum of squares, de-grees of freedom, mean squares, F-statistics and significance levels. It was not possible to use post-hoc tests to determine the direction of the differences in perception of the Dominant style variable between the five groups, because the test contained one group with N < 2.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used to test RQ2b which examined differences in preferences for coach CS variables between groups of athletes with the same coach-athlete relationship length. The test results showed no evidence of statistically significant differences between the five groups in preference for particular CS style variables (Table 2.2, p. 24).
Perceived/preferred coach CS and sex of the coach. 16
An independent sample t-test was used to examine RQ3 which considered the differences in athlete perception of coach communicator style between athletes with male head coaches and those with female head coaches. The t-test scores were based on one Likert scale question per CS variable. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that their coach communicated in a way that reflected the particular CS variable (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Results showed significant differences between the two groups on four of ten CS variables (Communicator Image was included as an independent CS variable): Friendly (p = .000, t = 3.942), Relaxed (p = .004, t = 3.017), Dominant (p = .029, t = -2.254), and Animated (p = .044, t = -2.067). The mean for perception of the mean for perception of the Friendly variable was 5.82 (SD = 1.357) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.13 (SD = 1.407) with athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Relaxed variable was 4.94 (SD = 1.540) for athletes with male head coaches, and 3.60 (SD = 1.121) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Dominant variable was 3.82 (SD = 1.648) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.87 (SD = 1.060) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for perception of the Animated variable was 3.36 (SD = 1.558) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.27 (SD = .961) for athletes with female head coaches. Table 3.1 (p. 25) lists the ten CS variables, coach sex catego-ries, perception means, standard deviations, t-statistics, and significance levels.
A post-hoc t-test was also conducted to determine any differences in preferences for CS variables between athletes with male head coaches and those with female head coaches. The t-test scores were based on one Likert scale question per CS variable. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that they preferred a head coach to communicate in a style reflective of the particular CS variable (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The results of this t-test also showed significant differences between the two groups on five of the ten CS 17
variables (Communicator Image included as an independent CS variable): Attentive (p = .000, t = 3.978), Communicator Image (p = .003, t = 3.173), Friendly (p = .003, t = 3.147), Impression-Leaving (p = .004, t = 3.056), and Open (p = .012, t =2.604). The mean for the Attentive varia-ble was 6.36 (SD = .895) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.13 (SD = 1.187) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Communicator Image variable was 6.09 (SD = .980) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.07 (SD = 1.072) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean of preference for the Friendly variable was 6.18 (SD = 1.158) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.00 (SD = 1.309) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Impression-Leaving variable was 5.85 (SD = 1.121) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.73 (SD = 1.280) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Open variable was 5.45 (SD = 1.394) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.40 (SD = 1.056) for athletes with female head coaches. Table 3.2 (p. 26) lists the ten CS variables, coach sex categories, preference means, standard deviations, t-statistics, and significance levels.
Perceived coach CS and perceived personal/team performance.
Ideally, measures of performance would take into account multiple factors influencing performance levels. For example, an athlete whose playing statistics were lower than expected could be considered to have performed well if there were extenuating factors such as a lingering injury, or a traumatic life event. For the purposes of this study, perception of personal perfor-mance was measured by a single Likert style question that asked athletes the extent to which they agreed that their performance was successful considering everything that they experienced dur-ing the season (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A correlation test was used to de-termine the relationship between perception of personal performance and perception of head coach CS as represented by the ten separate style variables (Communicator Image included as an 18
independent CS variable). Four of the ten CS variables were found to have a significant correla-tion with perception of personal performance: Impression-Leaving (p = .004, r = .409), Friendly (p = .008, r = .381), Open (p = .010, r = .371), and Relaxed (p = .012, r = .364). Table 4.1 (p. 27) lists the ten style variables tested along with their correlation coefficients, coefficients of de-termination, and significance levels. The magnitude of these correlations was slight: Impres-sion-Leaving (r2 = .167), Friendly (r2 = .145), Open (r2 = .138), and Relaxed (r2 = .132).
Athlete perception of team performance for the fall 2013 season was used to examine dif-ferences in perception of coach CS (RQ4b). As with personal performance, perception of team performance would, ideally, take into account various extenuating circumstances influencing team performance levels such as: injuries, athlete ineligibility, athlete transfers, etc. For the pur-poses of this study, perception of team performance was measured by a single Likert style ques-tion. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that their team’s perfor-mance was successful, given everything that occurred during the season (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A correlation test was used to determine the relationship between team per-formance and athlete perception of head coach communicator style as represented by ten sepa-rate style variables (Communicator Image was included as an independent CS variable). Table 4.2 (p. 28) lists the style variables tested along with their correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, and significance levels.
Eight of the ten coach CS variables showed significant correlation with perception of team performance: Impression-Leaving (p = .000, r = .536), Friendly (p = .001, r = .463), Ani-mated (p = .001, r = .460), Communicator Image (p = .001, r = .459), Open (p = .003, r = .424), Attentive (p = .005, r = .404), and Dominant (p = .013, r = .358) all had positive correlations with perceived team performance. Contentious (p = .021, r = -.338) had a negative correlation. 19
Impression-Leaving (r2 = .287), Friendly (r2 = .214), Communicator Image (r2 = .211), and An-imated (r2 = .212) all had low correlations. Open (r2 = .180), Attentive (r2 = .163), Dominant (r2 = .128), and Contentious (r2 = .114) all had slight correlations with athlete perception of team performance.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and athlete age.
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the relative con-tribution of athlete age (within groups of same coach-athlete relationship length) on the distribu-tion of perception for coach CS variables (RQ5a). Four of the ten variables were affected signif-icantly: Dominant, Contentious, Dramatic, and Impression-Leaving. Tables 5.1a, 5.2a, 5.3a, and 5.4a (pp. 29, 31, 33, and 35) list the descriptive statistics corresponding to tests for each of these four CS variables. Tables 5.1b, 5.2b, 5.3b, and 5.4b (pp. 30, 32, 34, and 36) list the test F-statistics and significance levels for each variable. For CS variable Dominant, the findings showed significant effects due to athlete age (p = .023, F = 3.272) as well differing lengths of coach-athlete relationship (p = .028, F = 3.107), but there were no significant effects due to a combined influence of both age and length of coach-athlete relationship. For CS variable Con-tentious, athlete age there was a significant effect due to athlete age (p = .048, F = 2.689), but no significant effect from length of relationship or from a combined influence of age and relation-ship length. For the CS variables Dramatic and Impression-Leaving, there were significant ef-fects due to length of coach-athlete relationship (p = .026, F = 3.170) and (p = .048, F = 2.695) respectively, but no significant effects due to age or a combination of age and relationship.
No significant results were found for two-way ANOVA tests of the effect on athlete pref-erence for CS variables due to athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, or from a combi-nation of age and relationship length (RQ5b). 20
Data Tables
Table 1.1
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness
Communicator Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of
Determination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.482
0.232
.000
Friendly
.610
0.372
.000
Attentive
.749
0.561
.000
Relaxed
.170
-
.242
Contentious
-.313
0.098
.030
Dramatic
-.054
-
.711
Animated
.328
0.108
.021
Open
.441
0.194
.002
Impression-Leaving
.405
0.164
.004
Communicator Image
.738
0.545
.000
Note. Significant results in bold. Coefficients of determination were not calculated for non-significant cases (-).
a N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48)
21
Table 1.2
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable Pairs
Dominant
Friendly
Attentive
Relaxed
Contentious
Dramatic
Animated
Open
Imp-Leaving
Dominant
-
Friendly
p = .305
r = .149
-
Attentive
p = .110
r = .231
p = .000 r = .731
-
Relaxed
p = .751
r = -.047
p = .000 r = .521
p = .006 r = .385
-
Contentious
p = .483
r = -.104
p = .001 r = -.463
p = .001 r = -.467
p = .805
r = -.307
-
Dramatic
p = .029 r = .312
p = .036 r = -.300
p = .021 r = -.329
p = .250
r = -.167
p = .085
r = .251
-
Animated
p = .000 r = .543
p = .281
r = .157
p = .688
r = .059
p = .437
r = -.114
p = .594
r = -.079
p = .214
r = .181
-
Open
p = .189
r = .191
p = .000 r = .535
p = .001 r = .447
p = .222
r = .178
p = .189
r = -.193
p = .061
r = -.270
p = .123
r = .223
-
Imp-Leaving
p = .135
r = .217
p = .000 r = .504
p = .000 r = .484
p = .037 r = .298
p = .005 r = -.399
p = .117
r = -.227
p = .084
r = .249
p = .001 r = .444
-
Note. N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). Pearson Correlation Coefficient = r. Sig. (2-tailed) = p. Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.22
Table 1.3
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Communicator Image
Note. N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). Pearson Correlation Coefficient = r. Sig. (2-tailed) = p. Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.
Dominant
Friendly
Attentive
Relaxed
Contentious
Dramatic
Animated
Open
Imp-Leaving
Communicator
Image
p = .041 r = .292
p = .000 r = .737
p = .000 r = .755
p = .016
r = .342
p = .001 r = -.446
p = .081
r = -.251
p = .113
r = .229
p = .000 r = .540
p = .000 r = .576 23
Table 2.1
One-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length
Communicator
Style Variable
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Dominant
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
25.491
88.467
113.957
4
42
46
6.373
2.106
3.025
.028
Friendly
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.155
110.675
115.830
4
42
46
1.289
2.635
.489
.744
Attentive
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
17.853
134.700
152.553
4
42
46
4.463
3.207
1.392
.253
Relaxed
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
9.611
100.133
109.745
4
42
46
2.403
2.384
1.008
.414
Contentious
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
.371
75.542
75.913
4
41
46
.093
1.842
.050
.995
Dramatic
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
10.659
88.575
99.234
4
42
46
2.665
2.109
1.264
.299
Animated
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.718
95.133
98.851
4
42
46
.929
2.265
.410
.800
Open
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.211
98.533
101.745
4
42
46
.803
2.346
.342
.848
Impression-
Leaving
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.198
82.908
91.106
4
42
46
2.050
1.974
1.038
.399
Note. N = 30 (1 yr), N = 8 (2 yrs), N = 6 (3 yrs), N = 1 (4 yrs), N = 2 (5 yrs) for all variables except Contentious N = 5 (3 yrs). Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.
24
Table 2.2
One-Way ANOVA Results for Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length
Communicator Style Variable
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Dominant
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
6.443
72.833
79.277
4
42
46
1.611
1.734
.929
.456
Friendly
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.402
72.875
81.277
4
42
46
2.100
1.735
1.211
.321
Attentive
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1.570
59.408
60.979
4
42
46
.393
1.414
.278
.891
Relaxed
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2.279
92.700
94.979
4
42
46
.570
2.207
.258
.903
Contentious
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.975
102.833
106.809
4
42
46
.994
2.448
.406
.803
Dramatic
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
16.063
69.415
85.478
4
41
45
4.016
1.693
2.372
.068
Animated
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
9.445
60.300
69.745
4
42
46
2.361
1.436
1.645
.181
Open
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
4.382
83.575
87.957
4
42
46
1.096
1.990
.551
.700
Impression-
Leaving
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.411
70.333
75.745
4
42
46
1.353
1.675
.808
.527
Note. N = 30 (1 yr), N = 8 (2 yrs), N = 6 (3 yrs), N = 1 (4 yrs), N = 2 (5 yrs) for all variables except Dramatic N = 29 (1 yr).
25
Table 3.1
Independent t-Test Results for Perceived Coach CS and Sex of the Coach
Communicator Style Variable
Coach Sexa
Mean
SD
t-test
tb
Sig. (2-tailed)
pb
Dominant
1
2
3.82
4.87
1.648
1.060
-2.254
.029
Friendly
1
2
5.82
4.13
1.357
1.407
3.942
.000
Attentive
1
2
4.94
4.07
1.870
1.534
1.580
.121
Relaxed
1
2
4.94
3.60
1.540
1.121
3.017
.004
Contentious
1
2
1.88
2.67
1.212
1.676
-1.843
.072
Dramatic
1
2
2.79
3.07
1.453
1.486
-.612
.544
Animated
1
2
3.36
4.27
1.558
.961
-2.067
.044
Open
1
2
4.79
3.93
1.516
1.280
1.895
.064
Impression-Leaving
1
2
4.70
4.33
1.531
1.113
.824
.414
Communicator Image
1
2
4.85
4.07
1.787
1.438
1.487
.144
aN = 33 for Group 1 (male) with the exception of Contentious (N = 32); N = 15 for Group 2 (female).
bt and bp = equal variances assumed; significant results in bold.
26
Table 3.2
Independent t-Test Results for Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach
Communicator
Style Variable
Coach Sexa
Mean
SD
t-test
tb
Sig. (2-tailed)
pb
Dominant
1
2
4.94
4.40
1.368
1.183
1.318
.194
Friendly
1
2
6.18
5.00
1.158
1.309
3.147
.003
Attentive
1
2
6.36
5.13
.895
1.187
3.978
.000
Relaxed
1
2
5.24
4.53
1.480
1.187
1.630
.110
Contentious
1
2
2.00
2.07
1.639
1.624
-.131
.896
Dramatic
1
2
2.50
2.33
1.481
1.175
.382
.704
Animated
1
2
4.61
4.33
1.273
1.175
.704
.485
Open
1
2
5.45
4.40
1.394
1.056
2.604
.012
Impression-Leaving
1
2
5.85
4.73
1.121
1.280
3.056
.004
Communicator Image
1
2
6.09
5.07
.980
1.072
3.173
.003
aN = 33 for Group 1 (male) with the exception of Dramatic (N = 32); N = 15 for Group 2 (female) with the exception of Communicator Image (N = 14).
bt and bp = equal variances assumed; significant results in bold.
27
Table 4.1
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal Performance
Communicator
Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of Determination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.237
-
.109
Friendly
.381
0.145
.008
Attentive
.285
-
.052
Relaxed
.364
0.132
.012
Contentious
-.099
-
.513
Dramatic
.105
-
.483
Animated
.167
-
.261
Open
.371
0.138
.010
Impression-Leaving
.409
0.167
.004
Communicator Image
.287
-
.051
Note. Significant results in bold. N = 47 for Personal Performance. Coefficients of determination were not calculat-ed for non-significant cases (-).
aN = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). 28
Table 4.2
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Team Performance
Communicator
Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of De-termination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.358
0.128
.013
Friendly
.463
0.214
.001
Attentive
.404
0.163
.005
Relaxed
.090
-
.549
Contentious
-.338
0.114
.021
Dramatic
.031
-
.837
Animated
.460
0.212
.001
Open
.424
0.180
.003
Impression-Leaving
.536
0.287
.000
Communicator Image
.459
0.211
.001
Note. Significant results in bold. N = 47 for Personal Performance. Coefficients of determination were not calcu-lated for non-significant cases (-).
aN = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48).
29
Table 5.1a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
4.21
5.00
3.75
5.00
4.47
1.311
1.265
1.893
-
1.383
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
4.00
2.00
2.40
2.75
.000
-
1.140
1.165
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
6.00
3.33
7.00
4.60
-
1.155
-
1.949
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
6.00
6.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
1.00
5.00
3.00
-
-
2.828
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
4.29
4.46
3.08
6.00
5.00
4.15
1.263
1.761
1.443
1.000
-
1.591
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
30
Table 5.1b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
56.961a
278.968
21.459
22.598
8.600
56.974
907.000
113.935
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
4.747
278.968
5.365
5.650
2.150
1.726
2.749
161.582
3.107
3.272
1.245
.011
.000
.028
.023
.311
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .500 (Adjusted R2 = .318)
31
Table 5.2a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
1.93
2.55
1.50
1.00
2.07
1.439
1.440
.577
-
1.363
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
1.00
5.00
2.00
2.13
.000
-
1.000
1.458
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
Total
4.00
1.33
2.00
-
.577
1.414
1
3
4
4
21
Total
2.00
2.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
2.00
2.00
2.00
-
-
.000
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
1.94
2.69
1.67
1.50
2.00
2.07
1.435
1.494
.778
.707
-
1.304
17
13
12
2
1
45
a Years.
b Years.
32
Table 5.2b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
21.477a
67.053
7.200
17.378
10.949
53.323
267.000
74.800
11
1
4
4
3
33
45
44
1.952
67.053
1.800
4.344
3.650
1.616
1.208
41.498
1.114
2.689
2.259
.320
.000
.367
.048
.100
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .287 (Adjusted R2 = .050)
33
Table 5.3a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
2.86
2.73
2.75
1.00
2.73
1.231
1.272
1.258
-
1.230
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.38
2.828
-
1.414
1.598
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
6.00
2.33
7.00
4.00
-
1.528
-
2.550
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
3.00
3.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
4.00
4.00
4.00
-
-
.000
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
3.06
2.85
2.33
3.67
4.00
2.87
1.519
1.214
1.303
3.055
-
1.485
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
34
Table 5.3b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
37.905a
177.054
23.558
11.957
18.895
61.313
478.000
99.217
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
3.159
177.054
5.890
2.989
4.724
1.858
1.700
95.294
3.170
1.609
2.542
.112
.000
.026
.195
.058
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .382 (Adjusted R2 = .157)
35
Table 5.4a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-Leaving” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
5.14
4.64
4.75
5.00
4.90
1.099
1.286
1.500
-
1.185
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
5.50
2.00
3.60
3.88
2.121
-
1.517
1.808
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
4.00
4.33
1.00
3.60
-
.577
-
1.517
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
5.00
5.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
4.00
5.00
4.50
-
-
.707
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
5.12
4.38
4.17
3.67
5.00
4.57
1.166
1.387
1.337
2.309
-
1.377
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
36
Table 5.4b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-Leaving” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
31.928a
273.940
17.434
12.789
11.270
53.376
1044.000
85.304
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
2.661
273.940
4.359
3.197
2.818
1.617
1.645
169.364
2.695
1.977
1.742
.127
.000
.048
.121
.164
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .374 (Adjusted R2 = .147).
37
Discussion
The present study explored the influence of coach CS on athletes, by testing for variables that either significantly correlated with or accounted for differences in athlete perceptions and preferences for coach CS. An important objective of the study was to approach the exploration from the perspective of communication research and constructs rather than sports psychology to better isolate the influence of communication related phenomena.
Perceived coach CS and perceived coach effectiveness.
The results from this study provide significant evidence that athlete perception of coach effectiveness correlates to their perception of particular CS variables. Athletes perceive effective head coaches to communicate in a style that is attentive, and to be good communicators in gen-eral. They also perceive effective coaches to be somewhat friendly, open, and to communicate in a way that leaves a good impression on others. To a lesser degree they may consider them to be dominant and animated as a communicator. Contentiousness is a communicator style that corre-lates inversely with an athlete’s perception of coach effectiveness. In other words, the more a coach communicates in a style that is contentious or argumentative, the less an athlete will per-ceive that coach as effective.
Collegiate female volleyball athletes likely have attentive parents or guardians who in-vested in and supported them through club and high school athletics. Because star high school or club athletes are more likely to be recruited to play in college, these athletes may have also had attentive high school and club coaches. They may be socialized to a culture where others attend to their needs and development. The perception of being a good communicator suggests a level of engagement and comfortableness of the athlete with the coach. Athletes may perceive such a 38
coach to give clear and constructive feedback that promotes athlete development, motivation, and satisfaction.
A related and important finding for this research question is the correlation between Communicator Image and the nine additional CS variables. Communicator Image relates to a person’s overall ability as a communicator (Norton, 1978; Norton, 1983; Norton & Pettegrew, 1977). In other words, a person with a good communicator image would be perceived to be a good communicator. Results from these correlation tests indicate that athletes perceive coaches who are good communicators to use styles of communicating that are attentive and friendly, that leave a good impression and are open somewhat, and relaxed and dominant to a lesser extent. As with perceptions of effectiveness, athletes did not perceive coaches to be good communica-tors who have styles that are somewhat contentious. Athletes did not perceive animated or dra-matic communication styles to be associated with being a good communicator.
Of particular note is the level of correlation between the perceptions of attentiveness, friendliness, communicator image, and coach effectiveness. These four variables have the high-est correlations of all pairings of CS variables, communicator image, and coach effectiveness. In order of strength of relationship: attentiveness and communicator image (p = .000, r = .755, r2 = .570), attentiveness and effectiveness (p = .000, r = .749, r2 = .561), communicator image and ef-fectiveness (p = .000, r = .738, r2 = .545), friendliness and communicator image (p = .000, r = .737, r2 = .543), and attentiveness and friendliness (p = .000, r = .731, r2 = .543). Each of these correlations is of moderate strength, with a coefficient of determination greater than 50% (r2 > .500). This indicates a fairly strong perceived relationship between attentiveness, friendliness, being a good communicator, and being an effective coach in the minds of the athletes in this study. 39
Communicating in ways that are contentious or argumentative will be perceived by ath-letes as indicators of a less effective coach. In addition to a negative and slight correlation with overall perception of coach effectiveness (r2 = .100), contentiousness also correlated negatively with each of the four individual scores for athlete perception of coach effectiveness: technical ef-fectiveness (p = .000, r = -.513, r2 = .263), non-technical (p = .021, r = -.335, r2 = .112), winning in general (p = .014, r = -.358, r2 = .128), and winning in the fall 2013 season (p = .004, r = -.417, r2 = .174). This suggests that athletes perceive a contentious style of communicating to be counterproductive to coach effectiveness in such areas as: designing effective practices, provid-ing technical feedback in practice and in competition, promoting team chemistry, building player confidence, and providing support both port on and off the court, etc. Additionally, contentious-ness had a significant negative correlation with perception of attentiveness (p = .001, r = -.467, r2 = .218), being a good communicator (p = .001, r = -.446, r2 = .199), and friendliness (p = .001, r = -.463, r2 = .214). Contentiousness had the strongest consistently negative correlation of all variables tested including communicator image and effectiveness.
There may be important insights to be considered from two of the CS variables that had no significant correlation with effectiveness at all. A more relaxed communicator style corre-lates with being a good communicator to a small extent, but it has no correlation to athlete per-ceptions of coach effectiveness. Also, coaches may adopt a dramatic style of communicating in an effort to make a strong impression on athletes. However, this communication style had no significant correlation with athlete perceptions of coach effectiveness, with being a good com-municator, or with leaving a good impression on others. Additionally, this style had significant and negative correlations with attentiveness and friendliness, the two variables most strongly correlated with effectiveness and being a good communicator. Coaches who cultivate dramatic, 40
contentious, or relaxed styles of communicating would perhaps be better served by developing styles more strongly and positively correlated with effectiveness such as attentiveness, friendli-ness, openness and communicating in ways that leave a good impression on others.
It is important to emphasize that these findings are for athlete perceptions of communica-tor style and effectiveness. No attempt was made to test for correlation of athlete perceptions with empirical measures of communicator styles displayed by coaches in their interactions with others, or with empirical measures of coach effectiveness. Therefore, it is possible that athlete perceptions do not accurately reflect reality. For example, coaches who are in reality very effec-tive may be perceived by their athletes to be more or less attentive than they actually are.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and coach-athlete relationship length.
Previous research has indicated differences in athlete perceptions and preferences for coaching behaviors and styles of communicating over the course of a single competitive season (Turman, 2003). RQ2a and RQ2b attempted to explore whether the length of a coach-athlete re-lationship expressed as the number of competitive seasons an athlete has played for a coach, might account for significant differences in perceived and preferred coach communicator styles.
The results indicated significant differences in perception of the Dominant style only. Athletes with differing lengths of relationship (having played for a coach 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5+ com-petitive seasons), had differing perceptions of their coach as communicating in dominant style. Further information regarding the direction of the differences in perception of these groups could not be obtained due to low sample numbers. This may indicate that the significant findings re-lated to perceptions of dominance and length of coach-athlete relationship may not be reliable, particularly in light of the fact that sample numbers were strongly skewed toward athletes with a shorter coach-athlete relationship length. 41
If perception of a dominant communicator style were to decrease as relationship length increased, this could be due to athlete transition to a more competitive athletic environment. With the pressures collegiate coaches face in producing and maintaining successful programs, their communicator styles could be perceived as more dominant than an athlete may have previ-ously encountered in a slightly more participative athletic environment in high school or club (Mallett & Côté, 2006). Such a difference in perception of a dominant coach communicator style might also be influenced by lack of familiarity and trust of newer athletes with their coach. If, however, perception of a dominant communicator style were to increase as length of relation-ship increased, this could indicate that athletes desire to be more independent and less directed by the coach as their skills and abilities develop over time. Of course, this is merely speculation. Further study is needed to determine the directional effects of length of coach-athlete relation-ship on perceptions of coach CS.
The study found no significant differences in preference for coach CS between groups of athletes with different lengths of the coach-athlete relationship. This suggests that athletes prefer that same coach communication styles regardless of degree of familiarity and experience with a coach. It suggests that athlete preferences for how their coaches communicate remain stable over their years of experience with a coach, and that increased experience with a coach does not change these preferences. It may be that other factors mediate an athlete’s choice to continue to work with a coach who communicates in a style that does not align with the athlete’s prefer-ences. These factors may include such things as: scholarships, camaraderie with teammates, etc.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and sex of the coach.
A series of independent sample t-tests resulted in several significant differences in per-ception of communicator style between athletes with male head coaches and athletes with female 42
head coaches. Athletes coached by males, perceived their coach to have a communicator style that was less dominant, friendlier, more relaxed, and less animated than athletes coached by fe-males. Athletes coached by females perceived their coach to have a communicator style that was more dominant, less friendly, less relaxed, and more animated than athletes coached by males.
Reasons for these differences in perception may be due to coaches shifting away from gender-typical communicator styles in response to the needs of their professional context (Borisoff & Chesebro, 2011; Carli, 2006; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). For example, a female coach may choose to cultivate a more dominant (typically viewed as masculine) communication style in order to better compete in a professional environment that is often viewed as masculine. Al-ternatively, male and female coaches may be exhibiting the same communicator styles but be perceived and assessed differently by athletes due to gender stereotypes (Wood, 2011). Still (2006) and Wood (2011) both note a common view that equates management and leadership ability to masculine communication styles. Carli (2006) suggests that females are perceived less favorably than males when they venture outside stereotypical gender roles. For example, it could be that a male coach and a female coach both exhibit a somewhat dominant communication style, but the female head coach is perceived to be even more dominant than the male head coach because she is exhibiting a style that is not typically considered feminine. This places female head coaches in a difficult position. If leadership competence is associated with masculine styles and behaviors, and females who exhibit these styles are looked upon less favorably, it may partly explain the prevalence of male head coaches appointed to lead female teams.
It is also important to note that there were no significant differences in perception of at-tentive, contentious, dramatic, open, and impression-leaving styles between athletes coached by males and those coached by females. There was also no difference in the perception of being a 43
good communicator. This may suggest that regardless of whether athletes are coached by males or females, they have the same perceptions for these five styles both in direction (either positive, neutral, or negative) and in relative strength of preference.
A second series of t-tests was conducted to examine differences in CS preferences for athletes coached by males and those coached by females. As with the tests of CS perceptions, significant differences in CS preferences for the two groups were found. Athletes coached by males indicated stronger preferences for head coaches to communicate in ways that are friendli-er, more attentive, more open, and more impression-leaving. They also more strongly prefer coaches who are better communicators than athletes coached by females.
There were no significant differences between the two groups on preferences for domi-nant, relaxed, contentious, dramatic, and animated styles. This may suggest that regardless of whether athletes are coached by males or females, they have the same preferences for these five styles both in direction (either positive, neutral, or negative) and in the strength of preference.
Ideally for athletes, preferences for coach CS would be mirrored in direction and strength of corresponding perceptions of the CS of their own head coach. Where significant differences exist in the present study, this is partially the case for only one style variable. Friendliness was the only CS for which athlete groups had significant differences in the same direction for both preference and perception. Athletes coached by males had a stronger perception of and prefer-ence for friendliness than did athletes coached by females. However, a comparison of the means indicates that both male and female coaches are less friendly overall than athletes prefer. Norton (1983) suggests that friendliness is a highly confirming style of communication that promotes the growth and security of others. While coach friendliness is important to both athlete groups, it 44
may be that female athletes attribute greater value to confirmation derived from the friendliness of male head coaches.
For attentive, open, impression-leaving, and communicator image style variables, there were significant differences in preferences between the two groups of athletes. In each case, ath-letes coached by males had stronger preferences for these style variables than athletes coached by females. But in each case, there were no differences in perception of these styles in male and female coaches. Therefore, for these particular styles it appears that both male and female coaches are communicating in ways that may not align with athlete preferences (males not enough, females too much).
No difference in preference is indicated for dominant, animated or relaxed styles of communication, but athletes perceive female coaches as more dominant and animated, and male coaches as more relaxed. This suggests that male coaches are too relaxed and not dominant or animated enough; and female coaches are too dominant, animated, and not relaxed enough for athletes.
Finally, in the case of dramatic and contentious styles, there were no significant differ-ences in preferences or perceptions between the two athlete groups. As these two styles typically have negative (contentious) or neutral-negative (dramatic) associations, likely both groups of athletes do not prefer these styles. In fact, though not significant, the means for preferences of these two styles are both quite low. Similarly, there appear to be no significant differences in perceptions of these two negative styles in male and female head coaches. And, the means for perception of these two styles, though not significant, are the lowest of all the CS variables test-ed. 45
Overall, the findings suggest significant differences in athletes’ perceptions of how male and female head coaches communicate. The reasons for these differences is a topic for future re-search, but may be related to gender stereotypes or efforts to counteract such stereotypes as dis-cussed above. When preferences are compared to perceptions, it appears that both male and fe-male coaches could modify their communicator styles to better align with those styles athletes favor. However, additional research would be needed to determine if such modifications would actually benefit athletes and teams.
Perceived coach CS and perceived personal/team performance.
Athlete perception of personal performance during the fall 2013 season correlated signif-icantly with perception of coach communicator style (RQ4a). Significant correlations were also found for athlete perception of team performance during the fall 2013 season (RQ4b). The find-ings suggest that athlete perception of coach CS is more strongly correlated with team perfor-mance and is manifested over a wider range of CS variables than it is with perception of personal performance. This suggests that as teams perform better, athletes perceive their coach to be bet-ter at communicating in ways that leave a good impression, are friendlier, more animated, indica-tive of being a good communicator, are more open and attentive, somewhat more dominant, and less contentious. Similarly, as coaches communicate in ways that reflect these communicator styles, athletes may perceive better team performance. These correlations indicate that there are coach communication styles that athletes may associate with better performance, and styles they may associate with poorer performance. It is interesting to speculate whether athletes may gauge their level of performance (individually or as a team) from the communication style cues of their head coach. For example, if a coach communicates in a contentious style, an athlete may inter-pret this as an indication that they (or their team) is not performing well. 46
Athletes may be more mindful of team performance than personal performance because positive team performance is the overarching goal in a team sport, with more visible and definite outcome measures. In a team sport such as volleyball, overall team performance supersedes in-dividual performance. Poor performance by one player may be offset by a team win, but it is un-likely that an outstanding performance by a single player will compensate for a team loss. Also, the mental focus needed for an individual athlete in a team sport to execute a skill in a competi-tive atmosphere may make her less aware of the way a coach is communicating in response to her personal performance than of the coach’s communication directed to other team members or to the team as a whole.
However, it is important to remember that the mean of the shared variance between CS variables significantly correlated with team performance is low to slight (four variables with r2 between .20 -.40 and four variables with r2 < .20). This indicates that more of the variation in an athlete perception of coach CS can be accounted for by influences other than perception of team performance, and conversely, more of the variation in athlete perception of team performance may be accounted for by influences other than perception of coach CS.
Overall, the results for RQ4a and RQ4b suggest that while perception of coach CS signif-icantly influences perception of performance, the influence is not particularly strong.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and athlete age.
Five significant differences were observed for perceptions of coach CS between athlete age groups with the same length of coach-athlete relationship. Test results were shown for Dif-ferences due to age were observed for dominant and contentious styles – although the nature of these differences was unclear. This suggests that some athlete age groups are more aware of and attuned to dominant and contentious coach communication styles. Differences due to length of 47
relationship were observed for dominant, dramatic, and impression-leaving styles. Again, it is unclear if the differences have directionality, such as more/less perception of these styles as length of relationship increases/decreases. This seems to suggest that an athlete’s familiarity or experience with their coach may mediate their awareness of or sensitivity to these particular communication styles. No differences in perception of CS were observed for the combined ef-fect of age and length of relationship.
These findings both confirm and contradict findings for RQ2a which examined percep-tions of coach CS and length of relationship only. In the case of both RQ2a and RQ5a, signifi-cant differences in perceptions of dominant styles were observed with regard to length of coach-athlete relationship. However, significant differences in perception of styles that are dramatic or that leave a good impression were observed in RQ5a but not in RQ2a. Additional research using larger sample numbers may be needed to clarify these findings.
Results for the two-way ANOVA which tested preferences for coach CS with respect to age and length of relationship, showed no significant differences between athlete age groups or those groups with different lengths of coach-athlete relationship. This would suggest that athlete preferences for how coaches communicate remains relatively stable as athletes increase in age and regardless of the familiarity or experience with a particular head coach. In other words, col-legiate athletes of all ages prefer similar styles of coach communication regardless of how long they have worked with particular coaches.
Limitations.
This study was affected by low sample numbers and responses that were skewed in the direction of younger athletes with shorter coach-athlete relationships. This may have been par-ticularly problematic for research questions involving athlete age or length of coach-athlete rela-48
tionship. Additionally, the sample may be subject to biases unique to the culture of the state from which it was taken. Using head coaches as gatekeepers was somewhat challenging. The researcher’s personal acquaintance with several of the head coaches and athletes involved in the survey may have heightened concerns about confidentiality. It may also have unduly influenced survey responses due to pressure athletes may have felt to participate. Although the online sur-vey format was convenient, it was subject to a relatively low response rate, which is not atypical of online surveys. Future researchers may want to approach compliance officers rather than head coaches to potentially boost sample numbers. They may also consider conducting similar sur-veys in person.
Future research.
Norton (1978) suggests that “communicator style is contingent upon context, situation, and time” and that “these three components to some extent substantially influence styles of communicating” (p. 110). The particular context of the present study involved female collegiate volleyball athletes who are predominantly citizens of the United States. With this in mind, the present study findings suggest several areas of possible future research. These include examina-tions of perceptions and preferences of both male and female athletes, examinations across mul-tiple competitive levels, multiple sports, and multiple nationalities. Changes in perceptions and preferences could be examined over the span of a single competitive season. Athlete perceptions could also be compared against empirical observations of coach CS as well as individual and team performance. Further examinations of how athlete perceptions and preferences for CS vary based on sex of the head coach may also be useful. Qualitative studies could be used to probe for deeper understanding of athlete perceptions of coach CS and the influence it has on their lives. 49
Practical Applications
The results of this study provide evidence of several significant correlations and differ-ences in athlete perception and preference for coach CS which may help coaches improve com-munication with their athletes.
Attentiveness and friendliness are key.
In terms of athlete perception of good communication ability and coach effectiveness, an attentive communication style is most important. As described in this study, attentive communi-cators tend to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what others have to say. Attentive communicators also deliberately react in such a way that others know they are being listened to. A friendly communication style is also important to perceived coach effectiveness and good communication. A friendly communicator is described in this study as one who usually demon-strates kindly interest and goodwill toward others, and is seldom hostile toward others.
Effective coaches are good communicators.
Athletes perceive effective coaches to be good communicators. Athletes associate good communicators with styles that are attentive and friendly, leave a good impression on others, are open, and not contentious; and are slightly relaxed and dominant. Due to evidence that CS ap-pears to correlate more strongly with perceptions of coach effectiveness than with perceptions of performance, it may be that particular communicator styles signal effectiveness that outweighs the ups and downs of athlete perceptions of performance.
Contentiousness is counterproductive.
Coaches who communicate in ways that are contentious are perceived by athletes to be not only poor communicators but also less effective coaches. In every instance of significant 50
findings for contentiousness in this study, the style was always perceived negatively. This style variable is defined as being quarrelsome, belligerent, and causing much interpersonal unrest.
Drama doesn’t get you anywhere.
Athletes do not perceive coaches who communicate with dramatic styles to be ineffective or poor communicators, but neither do they perceive them to be effective or good communica-tors. As defined in this study, dramatic communicators frequently exaggerate to emphasize a point, use very picturesque speech, and vocally act out what is being communicated. A dramatic style may not reflect negatively on a coach (as contentiousness does), but it also doesn’t foster athlete perceptions of effectiveness and good communication. Coaches would be better off cul-tivating styles with a more positive impact on athletes such as attentiveness and friendliness.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that coach communication styles do significantly in-fluence athlete perceptions and preferences. Given the importance of perception in understand-ing actual behavior (Montgomery and Norton, 1981), the results of this study suggest that future research is warranted for examinations of coach communicator style and its impact on athlete motivation, satisfaction, decision-making, performance, etc. The results also serve to encourage coaches to consider communication theory and skill development as part of their academic and professional training. This might include such things as the study of gender and communication, or how to adapt one’s communication style to the needs of a particular athletic context. Finally, this study provides evidence of significant insights available to athletics professionals and schol-ars through the perspective of communication research. Such research may increase understand-ing of the ways communication can be used to foster athlete development, improve athlete per-formance, and enhance the overall athletic experience. 51
Appendix A
Communicator Style Variables and Descriptive Paragraphs*
* From Norton & Pettegrew (1977).
CS Variable
Description
Dominant
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
Friendly
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person deliberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator appears to be. A person who is not conscious of any nervous mannerisms in his speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and col-lected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nervousness is relaxed.
Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a per-son may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who actively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to reflect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readi-ly reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him, this person is impression-leaving.
Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image. 52
Appendix B
Demographics of Female Collegiate Volleyball Programs in the State of Utah in 2013
Note. Data retrieved from each program’s athletic website, as of October 2013.
Program
Athletic
Association and Division
Coach Sex
No. Athletes 2013 Roster
2012
Conference
Affiliation
2012
Conference Rank
Brigham Young University
NCAA-DI
M
18
WCC
1/9
Dixie State University
NCAA-DII
F
18
Pac West
9/14
Salt Lake Community College
NJCAA-DI
F
14
SWAC
2/6
Snow College
NJCAA-DI
M
18
SWAC
4/6
Southern Utah University
NCAA-DI
F
15
Big Sky
8/11
University of Utah
NCAA-DI
F
15
PAC-12
9/12
Utah State University
NCAA-DI
M
15
WAC
1/10
Utah State University–Eastern
NJCAA-DI
F
14
SWAC
5/6
Utah Valley University
NCAA-DI
M
15
Great West
1/5
Weber State University
NCAA-DI
M
17
Big Sky
10/11
Westminster College
NAIA-DI
F
14
Frontier
7/9 53
Appendix C
Head Coach Recruitment Email
Dear Coach _____________________,
My name is Sheryl Peterson and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Weber State University. For my master’s thesis I am conducting research on athlete perception of head coach communicator style – among collegiate female volleyball athletes participating with the eleven pro-grams in the State of Utah. Would you be willing to have your student-athletes participate in a 15-minute, anonymous, online survey to share their views and opinions for this study? No identifying in-formation about the survey participants, coaches, or institutional affiliations will be disclosed in the re-search findings.
If you are willing to have your student-athletes participate in this research study, would you please:
1. Forward this email to each student-athlete from your Fall 2013 roster.
2. Send a group text message to alert your athletes to the survey email, and encourage them to click on the survey link and complete the survey.
The survey link is www.
I am extremely grateful for your time and willingness to help me with this research study. Once the sur-vey data has been analyzed, I would be happy to forward to you a general description of the study find-ings in aggregate. If you have any questions, you are more than welcome to contact me or my thesis advisor – our contact information is listed below.
Sheryl Peterson Dr. Sarah Steimel
peterson@seis.utah.edu sarahsteimel@weber.edu
801-362-1387 (cell) 801-626-6535 (office) 54
Appendix D
Informed Consent and Online Survey Questions
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this research study. Through this online survey I hope to explore athlete perceptions (thoughts, feelings, and opinions) of how their coaches communicate. To participate in this study you must meet the following criteria: (1) You must be at least 18 years old, and (2) You must have been listed on the Fall 2013 roster of a women’s volleyball program at a college or university within the State of Utah. If you DO NOT meet the above criteria, you do not qualify for this study and you can exit the online sur-vey now. If you DO meet the participation criteria, please read through the remainder of this infor-mation. As a participant in this survey, you understand: • You are free to discontinue the survey at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the researcher, or Weber State University. • The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and will ask you questions about your perceptions and preferences for the communication style of head coaches. • Your participation is anonymous and your name will not be collected. • Your responses will be kept completely confidential. The only individual with access to your responses will be the researcher. All responses will be kept on a password protected computer belonging to the researcher. Survey responses will be used as data in a published graduate thesis, but will not personally identify you, your coach, or your university in any way. • There are no known risks for participating in this study. There are similarly no known benefits for par-ticipating in this study. However, your participation may contribute to a better understanding of the in-fluence of communication style in general and in athletics in particular. • You may ask any questions concerning this research study and have those questions answered before agreeing to participate or after the study is complete. Feel free to contact the researcher, Sheryl Peter-son at (801) 362-1387 (cell/text) or peterson@seis.utah.edu. You may also contact the principal investi-gator, Dr. Sarah Steimel at sarahsteimel@weber.edu, or (801) 626-6535. • If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, that have not been answered by this statement or if you would like to report any concerns about this study, you may contact the Weber State University Institutional Review Board at (801) 626-6812. 55
By checking this box you certify that you meet the criteria specified above, have voluntarily decided to participate in the survey, and that you have read and understand the information presented above. After checking the box, please proceed to Survey Section I.
Survey Section I
Please answer the following 10 questions as they pertain to the communication style
of your head coach during the Fall 2013 volleyball season.
1. Dominant
This attribute refers to the tendency to come on strong in most social situations. A person who takes charge of things with others is dominant; a person who generally speaks very frequently in social situations is dominant.
My head coach communicates in a Dominant way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Friendly
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
My head coach communicates in a Friendly way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person de-liberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
My head coach communicates in an Attentive way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator appears to be. A person who is not conscious of any nervous mannerisms in his/her speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and col-lected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nerv-ousness is relaxed.
My head coach communicates in a Relaxed way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a person
may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
My head coach communicates in a Contentious way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
My head coach communicates in a Dramatic way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who ac-tively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to re-flect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
My head coach communicates in an Animated way: 57
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8. Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readily reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
My head coach communicates in an Open way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9. Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he/she says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him/her, this person is impression-leaving.
My head coach communicates in an Impression-Leaving way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he/she has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image.
My head coach has a good Communicator Image:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
58
Survey Section II
Please answer the following 10 questions according to how you prefer a head coach to com-municate.
11. Dominant
This attribute refers to the tendency to come on strong in most social situations. A person who takes charge of things with others is dominant; a person who generally speaks very frequently in social situations is dominant.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Dominant way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12. Friendly
The friendly communicator is encouraging to people, acknowledges others’ contributions, openly expresses admiration, and tends to be tactful, usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others, is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by oth-ers.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Friendly way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person de-liberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Attentive way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
59
14. Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator tends to be. A person who is not con-scious of any nervous mannerisms in his speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and collected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nervousness is relaxed.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Relaxed way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15. Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a person may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Contentious way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16. Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Dramatic way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17. Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who ac-tively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to re-flect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Animated way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18. Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readily reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Open way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19. Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he/she says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him/her, this person is impression-leaving.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Impression-Leaving way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20. Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he/she has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image.
I prefer a head coach to have a good Communicator Image:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Survey Section III
61
21. The head coach I played for during the Fall 2013 season is:
Male
Female
22. Including the Fall 2013 season, I have played _____________________seasons for my head coach - please include all club and college seasons you may have played for this coach.
One season
Two seasons
Three seasons
Four seasons
Five or more seasons
23. My head coach is effective at the technical aspects of the game (understands basic skills and strategy, designs effective practices, provides technical feedback in practice and in competition, etc.):
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24. My head coach is effective at the non-technical aspects of the game (promotes good team chemistry, fosters mental toughness, builds player confidence, facilitates individual and team goal setting, provides support on and off the court, etc.):
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25. In general, I feel my head coach is effective at developing a winning team:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26. Considering everything that impacted our team, and regardless of our win/loss record, I feel my head coach was effective during the Fall 2013 season:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27. Given everything I experienced, I feel I performed well during the Fall 2013 season:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28. Given everything we experienced, I feel my team performed well during the Fall 2013 sea-son:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29. During the Fall 2013 season I played for (check one):
Brigham Young University
Dixie State University
Salt Lake Community College
Snow College
Southern Utah University
University of Utah
Utah State University
Utah State University – Eastern
Utah Valley University
Weber State University
Westminster College
30. My year in school during the Fall 2013 season was:
Freshman (redshirt or otherwise)
Sophomore
Junior
Senior (fifth year or otherwise)
31. My age as of the date of this survey is:
18
19
20
21
22
23 63
24
25+
To complete the survey and have your responses recorded, please click “Submit” below.
If you have any questions or concerns you are welcome to contact:
Sheryl Peterson (student researcher) Dr. Sarah Steimel (principal investigator)
peterson@seis.utah.edu sarahsteimel@weber.edu
(801) 362-1387 (text/cell) (801) 626-6535 (office)
64
References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal national study: Thirty five year update, 1977-2012. Retrieved from http://www.acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf
Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring rela-tionships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30(4), 377-392.
Baird Jr, J. E., & Bradley, P. H. (1979). Styles of management and communication: A compara-tive study of men and women. Communication Monographs, 46(2), 101-111.
Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communicator style and managerial performance in complex organizations: A field study. The Journal of Business Communication, 19(4), 51-76.
Bednar, D. A., & Brandenburg, M. (1984). Relationships between communicator style and per-ceived teaching effectiveness in management classes. Academy of Management Proceed-ings, 1, 111-115.
Borisoff, D., & Chesebro, J. W. (2011). Communicating power and gender. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Carli, L. L. (2006). Gender issues in workplace groups: Effects of gender and communication style on social influence. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communica-tion at work (pp. 69-83). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Limited.
Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45. 65
Comadena, M. E., Semlak, W. D., & Escott, M. D. (1992). Communicator style and teacher ef-fectiveness: Adult learners versus traditional undergraduate students. Communication Re-search Reports, 9(1), 57-63.
Condra, M., & Hudson, C. (1996). The study of communication as preparation for law school: A survey interview study. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 3, 155-166.
Côté, J., Yardley, J., Hay, J., Sedgwick, W., & Baker, J. (1999). An exploratory examination of the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport. Avante, 5(3), 82-92.
Dion, P. A. & Notarantonio, E. M. (1992). Salesperson communication style: The neglected di-mension in sales performance. The Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 63-77.
Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/chip_docs/11
Gordon, R. D. (1987). The communicator style of one championship coach. Perceptual and Mo-tor Skills, 65(2), 662.
Hastie, P. A. (1993). Coaching preferences of high school girl volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1309-1310.
Hastie, P. A. (1995). Factors affecting coaching preferences for secondary school volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 347-350.
Henning, Z. (2010). Teaching with style to manage student perceptions: The effects of socio-communicative style and teacher credibility on student affective learning. Communica-tion Research Reports, 27(1), 58-67. 66
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in Sport Psychology (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horvath, C. W. (1995). Biological origins of communicator style. Communication Quarterly, 43(4), 394-407.
Kassing, J. W. & Pappas, M. E. (2007). “Champions are built in the off season”: An exploration of high school coaches’ memorable messages. Human Communication, 10(4), 537-546.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behavior. London: Routledge.
Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on the characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314-327.
Mallett, C. & Côté, J. (2006). Beyond winning and losing: guidelines for evaluating high per-formance coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 213-221.
Montgomery, B. M. & Norton, R. W. (1981). Sex differences and similarities in communicator style. Communication Monographs, 48, 121-132.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2012). NCAA sports sponsorship and participation rates report: Student-athlete participation 1981-1982 – 2011-12. Retrieved from http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2013.pdf
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 99-112.
Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Norton, R. W., & Miller, L. D. (1975). Dyadic perception of communication style. Communica-tion Research, 2(1), 50-67. 67
Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. Commu-nication Yearbook, 4, 565-579.
Norton, R. W., & Pettegrew, L. S. (1977). Communicator style as an effect determinant of at-traction. Communication Research, 4(3), 257-282.
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 105-130.
Potter, W. J., & Emanuel, R. (1990). Communication styles and their relationship to achieve-ment. Communication Education, 39, 234-249.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A. (1992). Teacher communicator style. Communication Education, 41, 153-166.
Scott, M. D., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Student perceptions of instructor communication behav-iors and their relationship to student evaluation. Communication Education, 30(1), 44-53.
Still, L. V. (2006). Gender, leadership and communication. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication at work (pp. 183-194). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
The National Federation of State High School Associations. (n.d.). 2012-13 High school athletics participation survey results. In 2013-14 NFHS Handbook_pgs52-70 (1).pdf. Retrieved from http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282
Turman, P. D. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education 52(2), 73-86.
Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72(2), 162-179. 68
USA Volleyball. (n.d.). 2011 Fact sheet: By the numbers. Retrieved from http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/About-Us/Corporate-Reports/USA_Volleyball_by_the_Numbers_2011.pdf
USA Volleyball. (n.d.). 2012 Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/About-Us/Corporate-Reports/2012 Annual Report 2.pdf
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wood, J. T. (2011). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

The author has granted Weber State University Archives a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce his or her theses, in whole or in part, in electronic or paper form and to make it available to the general public at no charge.The author retains all other rights.

The author has granted Weber State University Archives a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce his or her theses, in whole or in part, in electronic or paper form and to make it available to the general public at no charge.The author retains all other rights.

Full-Text

i
Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 0v
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 01
Literature Review and Research Questions .................................................................................. 03
Measuring Communicator Style ............................................................................................. 03
Communicator Style and Perceived Effectiveness (RQ1) ...................................................... 04
Communicator Style and Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) .............................................. 06
Communicator Style and Sex (RQ3) ...................................................................................... 06
Communicator Style and Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ........................................................... 07
Communicator Style and Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ........................................................................ 08
Methods........................................................................................................................................ 09
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness (RQ1) ........................................... 12
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) ...... 15
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach (RQ3) ................................................. 15
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal/Team Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ................. 17
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Athlete Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ............................................ 19
Data Tables ............................................................................................................................. 20
Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 37
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness (RQ1) ........................................... 37
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length (RQ2a, RQ2b) ...... 40
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach (RQ3) ................................................. 41
Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal/Team Performance (RQ4a, RQ4b) ................. 45 ii
Perceived/Preferred Coach CS and Athlete Age (RQ5a, RQ5b) ............................................ 46
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 47
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 48
Practical Applications ................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix ...................................................................................................................................... 51
References .................................................................................................................................... 64
iii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach
Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 1.2 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable Pairs ................................ 21
Table 1.3 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach
Communicator Image............................................................................................ 22
Table 2.1 One-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS and Coach-Athlete
Relationship Length .............................................................................................. 23
Table 2.2 One-Way ANOVA Results for Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete
Relationship Length .............................................................................................. 24
Table 3.1 Independent t-Test Results for Perceived Coach CS and Sex of the Coach ......... 25
Table 3.2 Independent t-Test Results for Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach .......... 26
Table 4.1 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal
Performance .......................................................................................................... 27
Table 4.2 Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Team
Performance .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 5.1a Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 29
Table 5.1b Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 30
Table 5.2a Two-way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 31
Table 5.2b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 32 iv
Table 5.3a Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic”
and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................................... 33
Table 5.3b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic”
and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) ........................................ 34
Table 5.4a Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-
Leaving” and Athlete Age (Descriptive Statistics) ............................................... 35
Table 5.4b Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-
Leaving and Athlete Age (F-statistics and Significance Levels) .......................... 36
v
Abstract
This purpose of this study was to explore the influence of coach communicator style (CS) on athletes. Of consideration was how athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS differ with respect to athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, and sex of the coach. Correla-tions between athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS with respect to athlete percep-tion of coach effectiveness, and athlete perception of personal and team performance were also examined. Study participants were female athletes on the fall 2013 rosters of collegiate volley-ball programs within the State of Utah. An online survey was used to gather athlete responses. Perceptions of and preferences for Coach CS were measured using a shortened version a com-municator style construct developed by Robert W. Norton. The study yielded a number of sig-nificant findings, including: 1) communication styles athletes associate with coach effectiveness, 2) communication styles athletes associate with coaches who are good communicators, 3) the significance of attentive, friendly, contentious, and dramatic communication style variables, and 4) differences in perception of and preference for coach CS between athletes coached by males and those coached by females. Additional significant findings were shown for CS and: athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, athlete performance, and team performance. The study discusses the implications of these findings, outlines areas of possible future research, and sug-gests several practical applications for coaches. 1
Introduction
Coaches have a profound influence on collegiate student-athletes. A primary objective of collegiate coaches is to assist athletes in achieving success in the athletic arena (Mallett & Côté, 2006). But given the nature of the coach-athlete relationship, a coach’s influence often extends much further than the court or playing field (Turman, 2003). Coach communication impacts not only athletic performance, but also shapes an athlete’s self-concept, life skills, character, and values. In fact, some messages communicated by coaches continue to influence athletes long af-ter the circumstances in which they are delivered (Kassing & Pappas, 2007). Memorable coach communications are often glorified on film screens while others are vilified in news reports. Most fall between the extremes – they may hit the mark, be rejected, overlooked, or misinter-preted. Verbatim content is an important component of effective coach communication, but it is not the only factor. Norton (1978) suggests that the style in which communication is delivered has an important role in message impact. Norton defines “communicator style” (CS) as “the way one verbally and paraverbally interacts to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpret-ed, filtered, or understood” (p. 99). Thus, CS provides athletes additional information about what a coach is trying to say.
In the United States in 2012, volleyball was ranked as the second largest intercollegiate sport for women behind basketball in numbers of colleges and universities that sponsor these programs (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) reported 1,047 sponsored female volleyball teams in Divisions I, II, and III with 15,890 total par-ticipating athletes in 2011-2012. They also reported that of the major collegiate team sports in the United States, volleyball is the largest predominantly female sport (NCAA, 2012). 2
The sport is highly popular at the high school and junior club levels as well. The Nation-al Federation of State High School Associations reported 420,208 female high school partici-pants in volleyball in 2012-13 (“2012-13 High School Athletics Participation Survey Results”). USA Volleyball (USAV) reported 214,376 junior level members registered in 2012 (“2012 Cor-porate Report”). USAV female volleyball teams have enjoyed success on the world stage, both at the junior and senior levels. USAV reported that the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB) ranked United States female youth/junior volleyball teams, No. 3 in the world as of Au-gust 22, 2011, and the U.S. women’s national team, No. 1 as of January 4, 2012 (“2011 Fact Sheet”). Six of the 10 medals won in 2011 by U.S. national indoor volleyball teams during in-ternational competition were won by female teams, including the only two gold medals won that year by USAV indoor teams (“2011 Fact Sheet”). Despite the popularity and increase in num-bers of female collegiate volleyball teams and athletes, the percentage of females coaching them has decreased. In 1978, 86.6% of women’s programs were coached by females. By 2012, this number had dropped to 53.3% (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). Due to its popularity and the chang-ing dynamic of female head coaches, volleyball presents a unique and interesting context for re-searchers interested in communication studies.
Montgomery and Norton (1981) suggest that, “Understanding the perceptions of one’s own and others’ behavior may be as vital to the explanation of the communication process as is the behavior itself” (p. 122). By exploring athletes’ perceptions of coach CS, this descriptive study seeks to uncover areas of interest that merit more focused research in the future. It is hoped that the findings from this study will ultimately benefit student-athletes by encouraging coaches to better understand the impact of how they communicate. Two reasons for doing so seem particularly persuasive: 1) the potential of coach communication to facilitate either, growth 3
and achievement or something less, and 2) the ability of a communicator to consciously change and adapt communicator style (Norton & Nussbaum, 1980). It seems fitting for coaches as well as scholars and professionals in all areas of endeavor, to consider communication studies as an area of focus alongside discipline-specific technical training (Condra & Hudson, 1996; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967).
Literature Review and Research Questions
Measuring communicator style.
The development of Norton’s CS construct was influenced, in part, by the concept that, “Every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former, and is therefore a metacommunication” (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967, p. 54; see also Norton, 1983). In other words, there is both a literal message, and an element that indi-cates how that message should be understood. The CS construct is operationalized by ten style variables emerging from current and prior research of the time (Norton, 1983). These variables include: Dominant, Friendly, Attentive, Relaxed, Contentious, Dramatic, Animated, Open, and Impression-Leaving. Communicator Image is included in the construct as a dependent variable for evaluating communication proficiency (Norton, 1978). Appendix A (p. 51) lists brief de-scriptive paragraphs for each of the ten variables taken from an earlier CS study by Norton and Pettegrew (1977).
Bednar and Brandenburg (1984) note that research has proved the communicator style construct and its style sub-constructs to be both reliable and valid. The construct has been used in a variety of research contexts and situations including: style differences of male and female managers (Baird & Bradley, 1979); style differences based on sex of student respondents (Mont-gomery & Norton, 1981); style and sales performance (Dion & Notarantonio, 1992); style inher-4
itance in identical and fraternal twins (Horvath, 1995); and the role of style in staff interactions in both a hospital and insurance agency (Bednar, 1982). Many CS related studies have been conducted in the instructional context: teacher effectiveness in collegiate management courses (Bednar & Brandenburg, 1984); student achievement and preferences for teacher style (Potter & Emanuel, 1990); perceptions of teacher style and effectiveness as perceived by undergraduate and non-traditional college students (Comadena, Semlak & Escott, 1992); perception of style and teacher evaluation (Scott & Nussbaum, 1981); and style and student learning, (Andersen, Norton & Nussbaum, 1981). The use of the construct is not entirely foreign to studies of coach CS. Gordon (1987) used the measure to analyze the communication style of a successful collegiate volleyball coach.
Despite evidence of the influence of CS scholars remain divided on the extent of its in-fluence or how it should be defined and measured (Potter & Emanuel, 1990; Sallinen-Kuparinen, 1992; Henning, 2010).
Communicator style and perceived effectiveness.
In her review of research findings on teacher CS, Sallinen-Kuparinen (1992) notes: “Em-pirical evidence suggests that among a number of teacher characteristics, communicator style – constitutes a crucial factor in the teaching-learning process.” The author continues, “Further-more, research suggests that teacher communicator style significantly mediates student learning” (p. 153). Using Norton’s (1978) CS construct to examine student perceptions of teaching effec-tiveness within collegiate management courses, Bednar and Brandenburg (1984) found an asso-ciation between particular CS variables and teacher effectiveness categories. Scott and Nuss-baum (1981) found an association between student evaluations of instructor performance with self-disclosure and CS. Andersen, Norton, and Nussbaum (1981) found no significant relation-5
ship between CS and cognitive learning. However, the authors did find that teacher CS did relate to student perceptions of teacher effectiveness and the affective learning of students.
While teaching effectiveness has been explored often using Norton’s construct, CS has been less examined in the context of coaching effectiveness within athletics. Scholars suggest that coach effectiveness, especially for those who work with elite athletes, has many dimensions (Turman, 2008) and is best measured by a process that draws upon the perceptions of coaches and athletes, along with empirical observations and measures (Mallett & Côté, 2006). The au-thors suggest that, particularly in the case of coaching elite athletes, there are many factors influ-encing performance that lie outside a coach’s control. Therefore, win/loss records alone are not an accurate reflection of a coach’s effectiveness. Mallett and Côté (2006) reference a study by Lyle (2002) in which the work of coaching high-caliber athletes is contrasted with the work of coaching those who merely desire to participate in sports: “Performance or high performance coaching” they describe as involving “higher levels of commitment, more stable coach-athlete relationships, and greater focus on medium- to long-term planning, monitoring, decision-making, and management skills to facilitate control of performance variables” (p. 213). Within the do-main of sport psychology, several instruments have been developed to more accurately reflect the dimensional nature of effective coaching. The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) of Chelladu-rai and Saleh (1980) is one instrument that covers five areas related to effective coaching behav-iors: “Training and Instruction, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support and, Positive Feedback” (p. 34). The Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S) developed by Côté et al. (1999) addresses the dimensions of: “Technical Skills, Goal Setting, Mental Preparation, Personal Rapport, Physical Training and Planning, and Negative Personal Rapport” (p. 82). Due to the descriptive nature of the present study, the need for a concise survey instrument, and in an 6
attempt to more closely mirror the method of Bednar and Brandenburg (1984), athlete perception of coach effectiveness was measured with four Likert survey questions that each addressed a dif-ferent facet of effectiveness: technical aspects of the game, non-technical aspects of the game, ef-fectiveness in developing a winning program in general, and effectiveness during the fall 2013 season.
RQ 1: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to perceived coach effectiveness?
Communicator style and relationship length.
Turman (2003) found that athlete preferences for coach CS varied over time and degree of established relationship with the coach. The author’s longitudinal study revealed that athletes were much more tolerant of, and even preferred, “negative coaching strategies” (p. 82), or domi-nant, authoritarian and critical communication styles, later in a competitive season as opposed to the beginning of the season. The author suggested that the shift in preference was due to a de-gree of comfortableness and trust that athletes had developed with the coach through the season. With this in mind, the present study examined whether perception of coach CS and preferences for style variables were reported by athletes with a more established relationship with their coach (over multiple competitive seasons in this case) as opposed to those whose coach-athlete rela-tionship is of a shorter duration.
RQ 2a: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to the length of the coach-athlete relationship?
RQ 2b: How does preferred coach communicator style vary with respect to the length of the coach-athlete relationship?
Communicator style and sex. 7
Hastie (1993) found that high school age female volleyball athletes completing the LSS indicated differences in one of the five dimensions of leadership, based on the sex of their coach, but no differences for the other four dimensions. In their study of the similarities and differences of perceptions of CS of males and females, Montgomery and Norton (1981) found that both sex-es associate similar communication behaviors with both men and women they consider to be ef-fective communicators. However, Baird and Bradley (1979) found a number of differences in employee perceptions of the communication styles of males and females in managerial roles. Carli (2006) notes differences in communication related to stereotypical gender styles, but that these differences can be subject to “situational factors” (p. 71) including the gender makeup of groups in which communication takes place, and the power bases of those involved. The present study examined differences in perceptions of coach CS between those female athletes with male and those with female head coaches.
RQ 3: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to the sex of the head coach?
Communicator style and performance.
Individual athlete or team performance levels are often considered synonymous with coach effectiveness. However, while the two are interdependent, they are not necessarily inter-changeable. Coach effectiveness is contingent on multiple factors – including athlete and team performance. Athlete and team performance are likewise dependent on multiple factors – one being coach effectiveness. This study examined whether a relationship exists between athlete perceptions of coach CS and their perceptions of their personal performance and team perfor-mance. 8
Within the context of the classroom, Potter and Emanuel (1990) did not find a significant correlation between teacher CS and student achievement. However, in an examination of factors affecting performance by Olympic athletes, Orlick and Partington (1988) found that coach be-haviors, including message content and style of delivery, can have both positive and negative ef-fects on Olympic athlete performance. In this study, athlete perception of team and individual performance were each measured by a single Likert survey question (see Appendix D, p. 62).
RQ 4a: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete per-ception of their personal performance?
RQ 4b: How does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete per-ception of team performance?
Communicator style and age.
Comadena, Semlak, and Escott (1992) examined teacher CS and effectiveness in the col-lege classroom with traditional undergraduate students and non-traditional adult students. They found that 43% of the variation in perceived teacher effectiveness among traditional undergradu-ates was due to teacher CS, with 64% among non-traditional students. The authors also found that both groups of students characterized teacher effectiveness using different CS variables. The authors concluded that younger students do not consider CS as important an aspect of a teacher’s effectiveness than do older students. Athlete age has been shown to be a factor in how athletes interpret coach feedback (Horn, 2002), and in the effectiveness of coach feedback (Magill, 1994). However, Hastie (1995) found that athlete age did not predict preferences for coach effectiveness variables in any of the five dimensions of the LSS. The present study exam-ined whether younger athlete perceptions of and preferences for coach CS varies from that of older athletes. 9
RQ 5a: Within groups of athletes with the same length of coach-athlete relationship, how does perceived coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete age?
RQ 5b: Within groups of athletes with the same length of coach-athlete relationship, how does preferred coach communicator style vary with respect to athlete age?
Methods
Within the population of female collegiate volleyball players in the United States, a sam-pling frame was used of student-athletes competing at institutions of higher education within the State of Utah. The sampling frame provided a target sample of 173 athletes competing at 11 dif-ferent institutions - 90 athletes from six total programs with female head coaches and 83 athletes from five total programs with male head coaches. Basic demographics of these programs are given in Appendix B (p. 52). It was hoped that the researcher’s personal acquaintance with many of the program coaches would offset the risk of low sample numbers due to the fixed na-ture of the target sample.
Ten head coaches (N = 6 male, N = 4 female) and one athletic director (male, on behalf of a female head coach) were contacted as gatekeepers to solicit athlete participation in the study. Seven agreed to forward the survey email to their athletes (N = 4 male, N = 3 female), three de-clined to have their athletes participate (N = 2 male, N = 1 female) citing concerns of confidenti-ality or survey participation fueling discord within the team. One coach never responded (fe-male). This represents a 64% participation rate for head coach gatekeepers. Survey response rates of athletes from the seven participating programs was 43% (N = 48 actual participants; N = 112 prospective participants). The response rate from prospective athletes from all eleven pro-grams (N = 173) was 28%. Numbers of survey responses per program for the seven participating programs were: 11, 10, 10, 7, 6, 3, 1, and one incomplete response that did not list any demo-10
graphic information. Over twice as many responses were received from athletes with male head coaches 69% (N = 33) than female head coaches 31% (N = 15). For athletes with male head coaches this represents a 51% response rate for athletes from participating programs (37% re-sponse rate for all prospective participants with male head coaches); and a 32% response rate for participating athletes with female head coaches (18% response rate for all prospective partici-pants with female head coaches). Survey response rates by athlete age: eighteen year olds 38% (N = 18), nineteen year olds 28% (N = 13), twenty year olds 26% (N = 12), twenty-one year olds 6% (N = 3), twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-four year olds (N = 0), twenty-five years old or older 2% (N = 1), with age undeclared for two responses. Response rates by academic class year: freshman 62% (N = 29), sophomore 13% (N = 6), junior 23% (N = 11), senior 2% (N = 1), with class year undeclared for two responses. Response rates by length coach-athlete relation-ship: one year 64% (N = 30), two years 17% (N = 8), three years 13% (N = 6), four years 2% (N = 1), five or more years 4% (N = 2), with relationship length undeclared for two responses. A mandatory pre-survey certification question screened for only those prospective participants who were at least 18 years old and had been listed on the fall 2013 roster of one of the eleven colle-giate women’s volleyball programs within the State of Utah.
Following the conclusion of the fall 2013 women’s volleyball season (roughly two weeks after the NCAA DI women’s volleyball national championship), the gatekeepers of the target programs were contacted, via email, to request their assistance with the research study. The email (see Appendix C, p. 53) contained a brief description of the study and a link to an online survey. Coaches were asked to forward the email containing the survey link to all athletes on their fall 2013 roster. Coaches were also asked to follow-up with a text message to alert their athletes to the survey email and encourage participation. Later in January 2014, the head coach-11
es were contacted again, with a request to send a second text message to their athletes to remind and encourage them to participate in the survey if they had not yet done so. The survey was to be closed after January 31, but was left open through February 28, 2014 to accommodate several coaches who had been delayed in contacting their athletes.
The survey (see Appendix D, p. 54) was created in Google Docs and consisted of four sections: (1) Survey description, researcher contact and informed consent information, and pre-survey certification question, (2) Likert survey questions regarding the athlete perception of their head coach’s communicator style, (3) Likert survey questions regarding the athlete’s preferred coach communicator style, and (4) Likert survey questions as to athlete perception of personal performance, team performance and coach effectiveness, and nominal survey questions to gather demographic information such as: institutional affiliation, sex of the head coach, athlete aca-demic class, length of athlete-coach relationship (number of competitive season played for the head coach both in club and college), and athlete age.
Communicator styles included in the survey questions were based on a short version of Norton’s communicator style construct (see Appendix A, p. 51). Each of the ten CS variables was described with a brief paragraph (Norton & Pettegrew, 1977; see also Baird & Bradley, 1979; Bednar, 1982; Montgomery & Norton, 1981; Norton, 1983) followed by a Likert survey question. In their study of how perception of the CS of others varies with respect to one’s own, Norton and Miller (1975) used the same instrument for both CS measures. Similarly, this study used the same CS instrument for measuring perceived and preferred coach CS.
The survey was pilot-tested by two former student athletes and two coaches for time de-mands and clarity. It was estimated that the entire survey process would take participants 10-15 12
minutes. The survey data was automatically tabulated by Google Docs into a spreadsheet format and imported into SPSS for analysis on the researcher’s password protected computer.
Participant names were not collected. Institutional affiliations were requested simply to enable follow-up requests with those programs for which no survey participation was apparent. This was helpful in boosting response numbers as two of the coaches had experienced technical difficulties and two others needed additional encouragement to participate. Once the survey data had been imported into SPSS, institutional names were replaced with random letter codes for da-ta analysis.
An online format for the survey was preferred for several reasons: convenience both for the researcher and participants, a better fit for the sample which was geographically dispersed, cost effectiveness, brief turnaround time in terms of data collection, and participant anonymity. The major drawbacks of the format in regard to this study were: risk of non-participation, as well as incomplete surveys.
There were several ways that compliance with the survey was encouraged. It was felt that, with the assistance and encouragement of head coaches, athletes would be more inclined to participate. The participation of coaches as gatekeepers was encouraged through an offer by the researcher of a brief summary of the study findings in aggregate once the study had been com-pleted. Additionally, with the help of pilot-testing, every effort was made to keep the survey us-er-friendly, interesting, and brief.
Results
Perceived coach CS and perceived coach effectiveness.
RQ1 examined correlations between athlete perception of coach CS and perception of coach effectiveness. Coach effectiveness was measured by averaging the scores from four sepa-13
rate survey questions. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with statements of their coach’s effectiveness in four areas: technical skills, non-technical skills, developing a winning team in general, and during the fall 2013 season (see Appendix D, p. 61). Responses were rec-orded on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The mean was calculated for the sum of each respondent’s four scores to obtain an overall average for percep-tion of effectiveness. A correlation test was used to determine relationships between athlete av-erage perception of coach effectiveness and athlete perception of head coach communicator style as represented by the ten separate CS variables (Communicator Image included as an independ-ent CS variable).
Eight of the ten CS variables were found to have a significant correlation with athlete perception of coach effectiveness: Attentive (p = .000, r = .749), Communicator Image (p = .000, r = .738), Friendly (p = .000, r = .610), Dominant (p = .000, r = .482), Open (p = .002, r = .441), Impression-Leaving (p = .004, r = .405), Animated (p = .021, r = .328), and Contentious (p = .030, r = -.313). Table 1.1 (p. 20) lists the ten style variables along with the associated correla-tion coefficients, coefficients of determination, and significance levels. Attentive (r2 = .561) and Communicator Image (r2 = .545) had moderate correlations with coach effectiveness. Friendly (r2 = .372) and Dominant (r2 = .232) had low correlations. Open (r2 = .194), Impression-Leaving (r2 = .164), Animated (r2 = .108), and Contentious (r2 = .098) had slight correlations with coach effectiveness. Relaxed and Dramatic had no significant correlation with coach effectiveness.
Additional significant correlations were found between the nine independent CS style variable pairs. Pairs with positive correlations were: Attentive and Friendly (p = .000, r = .731), Animated and Dominant (p = .000, r = .543), Open and Friendly (p = .000, r = .535), Relaxed and Friendly (p = .000, r = .521), Impression-Leaving and Friendly (p = .000, r = .504), Impres-14
sion-Leaving and Attentive (p = .000, r = .484), Open and Attentive (p = .001, r = .447), Impres-sion-Leaving and Open (p = .001, r = .444), Relaxed and Attentive (p = .006, r = .385), Dramatic and Dominant (p = .029, r = .312), and Impression-Leaving and Relaxed (p = .037, r = .298). Those negatively correlated were: Contentious and Attentive (p = .001, r = -.467), Contentious and Friendly (p = .001, r = -.463), Contentious and Impression-Leaving (p = .005, r = -.399), Dramatic and Attentive (p = .021, r = -.329), and Dramatic and Friendly (p = .036, r = -.300). Table 1.2 (p. 21) lists the correlation coefficients and significance values for the variable pair-ings. Of the positively correlated variable pairs, Attentive and Friendly (r2 = .534) were moder-ately correlated. Animated and Dominant (r2 = .295), Open and Friendly (r2 = .286), Relaxed and Friendly (r2 = .271), Impression-Leaving and Friendly (r2 = .254), Impression-Leaving and Attentive (r2 = .234), and Open and Attentive (r2 = .200) all had low correlations. Impression-Leaving and Open (r2 = .197) Relaxed and Attentive (r2 = .148), Dramatic and Dominant (r2 = .097), and Impression-Leaving and Relaxed (r2 = .089) had slight correlations. Of the negatively correlated CS variable pairs, Contentious and Attentive (r2 = .218), and Contentious and Friendly (r2 = .214) had low correlations. Impression-Leaving and Contentious (r2 = .159), Dramatic and Attentive (r2 = .108), and Dramatic and Friendly (r2 = .09) all had slight correlations. Twenty of the thirty-six CS variable pairings (56%) showed no significant correlation.
Correlations were also examined between Communicator Image (dependent variable) and the nine independent CS variables. Communicator Image was found to significantly correlate with: Attentive (p = .000, r = .755), Friendly (p = .000, r = .737), Impression-Leaving (p = .000, r = .576), Open (p = .000, r = .540), Relaxed (p = .016, r = .342), Dominant (p = .041, r = .292), and Contentious (p = .001, r = -.446). Table 1.3 (p. 22) lists the correlation coefficients and sig-nificance values. Attentive (r2 = .570) and Friendly (r2 = .543) correlated moderately with 15
Communicator Image. Impression-Leaving (r2 = .332) and Open (r2 = .292) had a low correla-tion. Relaxed (r2 = .117) and Dominant (r2 = .085) had a slight correlation. Contentious had a low and negative correlation with Communicator Image (r2 = .199). Dramatic and Animated had no significant correlation with Communicator Image.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and coach-athlete relationship length.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test RQ2a which examined dif-ferences in perception of coach CS for athletes with five categories of coach-athlete relationship length. Length of relationship was measured by a nominal survey question asking athletes to se-lect from 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5+ seasons they had played for their head coach. Athletes were asked to include club seasons as well as collegiate seasons in order to more accurately reflect true length of relationship. Evidence of only one statistically significant difference between the five groups resulted from these tests, that of athlete perception of the style variable – Dominant (p = .028, F = 3.025). Table 2.1 (p. 23) lists the nine style variables tested along with sum of squares, de-grees of freedom, mean squares, F-statistics and significance levels. It was not possible to use post-hoc tests to determine the direction of the differences in perception of the Dominant style variable between the five groups, because the test contained one group with N < 2.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used to test RQ2b which examined differences in preferences for coach CS variables between groups of athletes with the same coach-athlete relationship length. The test results showed no evidence of statistically significant differences between the five groups in preference for particular CS style variables (Table 2.2, p. 24).
Perceived/preferred coach CS and sex of the coach. 16
An independent sample t-test was used to examine RQ3 which considered the differences in athlete perception of coach communicator style between athletes with male head coaches and those with female head coaches. The t-test scores were based on one Likert scale question per CS variable. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that their coach communicated in a way that reflected the particular CS variable (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Results showed significant differences between the two groups on four of ten CS variables (Communicator Image was included as an independent CS variable): Friendly (p = .000, t = 3.942), Relaxed (p = .004, t = 3.017), Dominant (p = .029, t = -2.254), and Animated (p = .044, t = -2.067). The mean for perception of the mean for perception of the Friendly variable was 5.82 (SD = 1.357) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.13 (SD = 1.407) with athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Relaxed variable was 4.94 (SD = 1.540) for athletes with male head coaches, and 3.60 (SD = 1.121) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Dominant variable was 3.82 (SD = 1.648) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.87 (SD = 1.060) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for perception of the Animated variable was 3.36 (SD = 1.558) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.27 (SD = .961) for athletes with female head coaches. Table 3.1 (p. 25) lists the ten CS variables, coach sex catego-ries, perception means, standard deviations, t-statistics, and significance levels.
A post-hoc t-test was also conducted to determine any differences in preferences for CS variables between athletes with male head coaches and those with female head coaches. The t-test scores were based on one Likert scale question per CS variable. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that they preferred a head coach to communicate in a style reflective of the particular CS variable (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). The results of this t-test also showed significant differences between the two groups on five of the ten CS 17
variables (Communicator Image included as an independent CS variable): Attentive (p = .000, t = 3.978), Communicator Image (p = .003, t = 3.173), Friendly (p = .003, t = 3.147), Impression-Leaving (p = .004, t = 3.056), and Open (p = .012, t =2.604). The mean for the Attentive varia-ble was 6.36 (SD = .895) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.13 (SD = 1.187) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Communicator Image variable was 6.09 (SD = .980) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.07 (SD = 1.072) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean of preference for the Friendly variable was 6.18 (SD = 1.158) for athletes with male head coaches, and 5.00 (SD = 1.309) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Impression-Leaving variable was 5.85 (SD = 1.121) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.73 (SD = 1.280) for athletes with female head coaches. The mean for the Open variable was 5.45 (SD = 1.394) for athletes with male head coaches, and 4.40 (SD = 1.056) for athletes with female head coaches. Table 3.2 (p. 26) lists the ten CS variables, coach sex categories, preference means, standard deviations, t-statistics, and significance levels.
Perceived coach CS and perceived personal/team performance.
Ideally, measures of performance would take into account multiple factors influencing performance levels. For example, an athlete whose playing statistics were lower than expected could be considered to have performed well if there were extenuating factors such as a lingering injury, or a traumatic life event. For the purposes of this study, perception of personal perfor-mance was measured by a single Likert style question that asked athletes the extent to which they agreed that their performance was successful considering everything that they experienced dur-ing the season (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A correlation test was used to de-termine the relationship between perception of personal performance and perception of head coach CS as represented by the ten separate style variables (Communicator Image included as an 18
independent CS variable). Four of the ten CS variables were found to have a significant correla-tion with perception of personal performance: Impression-Leaving (p = .004, r = .409), Friendly (p = .008, r = .381), Open (p = .010, r = .371), and Relaxed (p = .012, r = .364). Table 4.1 (p. 27) lists the ten style variables tested along with their correlation coefficients, coefficients of de-termination, and significance levels. The magnitude of these correlations was slight: Impres-sion-Leaving (r2 = .167), Friendly (r2 = .145), Open (r2 = .138), and Relaxed (r2 = .132).
Athlete perception of team performance for the fall 2013 season was used to examine dif-ferences in perception of coach CS (RQ4b). As with personal performance, perception of team performance would, ideally, take into account various extenuating circumstances influencing team performance levels such as: injuries, athlete ineligibility, athlete transfers, etc. For the pur-poses of this study, perception of team performance was measured by a single Likert style ques-tion. Athletes were asked to what extent they agreed with the statement that their team’s perfor-mance was successful, given everything that occurred during the season (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A correlation test was used to determine the relationship between team per-formance and athlete perception of head coach communicator style as represented by ten sepa-rate style variables (Communicator Image was included as an independent CS variable). Table 4.2 (p. 28) lists the style variables tested along with their correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, and significance levels.
Eight of the ten coach CS variables showed significant correlation with perception of team performance: Impression-Leaving (p = .000, r = .536), Friendly (p = .001, r = .463), Ani-mated (p = .001, r = .460), Communicator Image (p = .001, r = .459), Open (p = .003, r = .424), Attentive (p = .005, r = .404), and Dominant (p = .013, r = .358) all had positive correlations with perceived team performance. Contentious (p = .021, r = -.338) had a negative correlation. 19
Impression-Leaving (r2 = .287), Friendly (r2 = .214), Communicator Image (r2 = .211), and An-imated (r2 = .212) all had low correlations. Open (r2 = .180), Attentive (r2 = .163), Dominant (r2 = .128), and Contentious (r2 = .114) all had slight correlations with athlete perception of team performance.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and athlete age.
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the relative con-tribution of athlete age (within groups of same coach-athlete relationship length) on the distribu-tion of perception for coach CS variables (RQ5a). Four of the ten variables were affected signif-icantly: Dominant, Contentious, Dramatic, and Impression-Leaving. Tables 5.1a, 5.2a, 5.3a, and 5.4a (pp. 29, 31, 33, and 35) list the descriptive statistics corresponding to tests for each of these four CS variables. Tables 5.1b, 5.2b, 5.3b, and 5.4b (pp. 30, 32, 34, and 36) list the test F-statistics and significance levels for each variable. For CS variable Dominant, the findings showed significant effects due to athlete age (p = .023, F = 3.272) as well differing lengths of coach-athlete relationship (p = .028, F = 3.107), but there were no significant effects due to a combined influence of both age and length of coach-athlete relationship. For CS variable Con-tentious, athlete age there was a significant effect due to athlete age (p = .048, F = 2.689), but no significant effect from length of relationship or from a combined influence of age and relation-ship length. For the CS variables Dramatic and Impression-Leaving, there were significant ef-fects due to length of coach-athlete relationship (p = .026, F = 3.170) and (p = .048, F = 2.695) respectively, but no significant effects due to age or a combination of age and relationship.
No significant results were found for two-way ANOVA tests of the effect on athlete pref-erence for CS variables due to athlete age, length of coach-athlete relationship, or from a combi-nation of age and relationship length (RQ5b). 20
Data Tables
Table 1.1
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Effectiveness
Communicator Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of
Determination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.482
0.232
.000
Friendly
.610
0.372
.000
Attentive
.749
0.561
.000
Relaxed
.170
-
.242
Contentious
-.313
0.098
.030
Dramatic
-.054
-
.711
Animated
.328
0.108
.021
Open
.441
0.194
.002
Impression-Leaving
.405
0.164
.004
Communicator Image
.738
0.545
.000
Note. Significant results in bold. Coefficients of determination were not calculated for non-significant cases (-).
a N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48)
21
Table 1.2
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable Pairs
Dominant
Friendly
Attentive
Relaxed
Contentious
Dramatic
Animated
Open
Imp-Leaving
Dominant
-
Friendly
p = .305
r = .149
-
Attentive
p = .110
r = .231
p = .000 r = .731
-
Relaxed
p = .751
r = -.047
p = .000 r = .521
p = .006 r = .385
-
Contentious
p = .483
r = -.104
p = .001 r = -.463
p = .001 r = -.467
p = .805
r = -.307
-
Dramatic
p = .029 r = .312
p = .036 r = -.300
p = .021 r = -.329
p = .250
r = -.167
p = .085
r = .251
-
Animated
p = .000 r = .543
p = .281
r = .157
p = .688
r = .059
p = .437
r = -.114
p = .594
r = -.079
p = .214
r = .181
-
Open
p = .189
r = .191
p = .000 r = .535
p = .001 r = .447
p = .222
r = .178
p = .189
r = -.193
p = .061
r = -.270
p = .123
r = .223
-
Imp-Leaving
p = .135
r = .217
p = .000 r = .504
p = .000 r = .484
p = .037 r = .298
p = .005 r = -.399
p = .117
r = -.227
p = .084
r = .249
p = .001 r = .444
-
Note. N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). Pearson Correlation Coefficient = r. Sig. (2-tailed) = p. Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.22
Table 1.3
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Coach Communicator Image
Note. N = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). Pearson Correlation Coefficient = r. Sig. (2-tailed) = p. Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.
Dominant
Friendly
Attentive
Relaxed
Contentious
Dramatic
Animated
Open
Imp-Leaving
Communicator
Image
p = .041 r = .292
p = .000 r = .737
p = .000 r = .755
p = .016
r = .342
p = .001 r = -.446
p = .081
r = -.251
p = .113
r = .229
p = .000 r = .540
p = .000 r = .576 23
Table 2.1
One-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length
Communicator
Style Variable
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Dominant
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
25.491
88.467
113.957
4
42
46
6.373
2.106
3.025
.028
Friendly
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.155
110.675
115.830
4
42
46
1.289
2.635
.489
.744
Attentive
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
17.853
134.700
152.553
4
42
46
4.463
3.207
1.392
.253
Relaxed
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
9.611
100.133
109.745
4
42
46
2.403
2.384
1.008
.414
Contentious
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
.371
75.542
75.913
4
41
46
.093
1.842
.050
.995
Dramatic
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
10.659
88.575
99.234
4
42
46
2.665
2.109
1.264
.299
Animated
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.718
95.133
98.851
4
42
46
.929
2.265
.410
.800
Open
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.211
98.533
101.745
4
42
46
.803
2.346
.342
.848
Impression-
Leaving
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.198
82.908
91.106
4
42
46
2.050
1.974
1.038
.399
Note. N = 30 (1 yr), N = 8 (2 yrs), N = 6 (3 yrs), N = 1 (4 yrs), N = 2 (5 yrs) for all variables except Contentious N = 5 (3 yrs). Significant values in bold for cases where p < .05.
24
Table 2.2
One-Way ANOVA Results for Preferred Coach CS and Coach-Athlete Relationship Length
Communicator Style Variable
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Dominant
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
6.443
72.833
79.277
4
42
46
1.611
1.734
.929
.456
Friendly
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.402
72.875
81.277
4
42
46
2.100
1.735
1.211
.321
Attentive
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
1.570
59.408
60.979
4
42
46
.393
1.414
.278
.891
Relaxed
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2.279
92.700
94.979
4
42
46
.570
2.207
.258
.903
Contentious
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.975
102.833
106.809
4
42
46
.994
2.448
.406
.803
Dramatic
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
16.063
69.415
85.478
4
41
45
4.016
1.693
2.372
.068
Animated
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
9.445
60.300
69.745
4
42
46
2.361
1.436
1.645
.181
Open
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
4.382
83.575
87.957
4
42
46
1.096
1.990
.551
.700
Impression-
Leaving
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.411
70.333
75.745
4
42
46
1.353
1.675
.808
.527
Note. N = 30 (1 yr), N = 8 (2 yrs), N = 6 (3 yrs), N = 1 (4 yrs), N = 2 (5 yrs) for all variables except Dramatic N = 29 (1 yr).
25
Table 3.1
Independent t-Test Results for Perceived Coach CS and Sex of the Coach
Communicator Style Variable
Coach Sexa
Mean
SD
t-test
tb
Sig. (2-tailed)
pb
Dominant
1
2
3.82
4.87
1.648
1.060
-2.254
.029
Friendly
1
2
5.82
4.13
1.357
1.407
3.942
.000
Attentive
1
2
4.94
4.07
1.870
1.534
1.580
.121
Relaxed
1
2
4.94
3.60
1.540
1.121
3.017
.004
Contentious
1
2
1.88
2.67
1.212
1.676
-1.843
.072
Dramatic
1
2
2.79
3.07
1.453
1.486
-.612
.544
Animated
1
2
3.36
4.27
1.558
.961
-2.067
.044
Open
1
2
4.79
3.93
1.516
1.280
1.895
.064
Impression-Leaving
1
2
4.70
4.33
1.531
1.113
.824
.414
Communicator Image
1
2
4.85
4.07
1.787
1.438
1.487
.144
aN = 33 for Group 1 (male) with the exception of Contentious (N = 32); N = 15 for Group 2 (female).
bt and bp = equal variances assumed; significant results in bold.
26
Table 3.2
Independent t-Test Results for Preferred Coach CS and Sex of the Coach
Communicator
Style Variable
Coach Sexa
Mean
SD
t-test
tb
Sig. (2-tailed)
pb
Dominant
1
2
4.94
4.40
1.368
1.183
1.318
.194
Friendly
1
2
6.18
5.00
1.158
1.309
3.147
.003
Attentive
1
2
6.36
5.13
.895
1.187
3.978
.000
Relaxed
1
2
5.24
4.53
1.480
1.187
1.630
.110
Contentious
1
2
2.00
2.07
1.639
1.624
-.131
.896
Dramatic
1
2
2.50
2.33
1.481
1.175
.382
.704
Animated
1
2
4.61
4.33
1.273
1.175
.704
.485
Open
1
2
5.45
4.40
1.394
1.056
2.604
.012
Impression-Leaving
1
2
5.85
4.73
1.121
1.280
3.056
.004
Communicator Image
1
2
6.09
5.07
.980
1.072
3.173
.003
aN = 33 for Group 1 (male) with the exception of Dramatic (N = 32); N = 15 for Group 2 (female) with the exception of Communicator Image (N = 14).
bt and bp = equal variances assumed; significant results in bold.
27
Table 4.1
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Personal Performance
Communicator
Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of Determination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.237
-
.109
Friendly
.381
0.145
.008
Attentive
.285
-
.052
Relaxed
.364
0.132
.012
Contentious
-.099
-
.513
Dramatic
.105
-
.483
Animated
.167
-
.261
Open
.371
0.138
.010
Impression-Leaving
.409
0.167
.004
Communicator Image
.287
-
.051
Note. Significant results in bold. N = 47 for Personal Performance. Coefficients of determination were not calculat-ed for non-significant cases (-).
aN = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48). 28
Table 4.2
Correlation Results for Perceived Coach CS and Perceived Team Performance
Communicator
Style Variablea
Pearson Correlation Coefficient
r
Coefficient of De-termination
r2
Sig. (2-tailed)
p
Dominant
.358
0.128
.013
Friendly
.463
0.214
.001
Attentive
.404
0.163
.005
Relaxed
.090
-
.549
Contentious
-.338
0.114
.021
Dramatic
.031
-
.837
Animated
.460
0.212
.001
Open
.424
0.180
.003
Impression-Leaving
.536
0.287
.000
Communicator Image
.459
0.211
.001
Note. Significant results in bold. N = 47 for Personal Performance. Coefficients of determination were not calcu-lated for non-significant cases (-).
aN = 49 for all variables except Contentious (N = 48).
29
Table 5.1a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
4.21
5.00
3.75
5.00
4.47
1.311
1.265
1.893
-
1.383
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
4.00
2.00
2.40
2.75
.000
-
1.140
1.165
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
6.00
3.33
7.00
4.60
-
1.155
-
1.949
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
6.00
6.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
1.00
5.00
3.00
-
-
2.828
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
4.29
4.46
3.08
6.00
5.00
4.15
1.263
1.761
1.443
1.000
-
1.591
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
30
Table 5.1b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dominant” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
56.961a
278.968
21.459
22.598
8.600
56.974
907.000
113.935
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
4.747
278.968
5.365
5.650
2.150
1.726
2.749
161.582
3.107
3.272
1.245
.011
.000
.028
.023
.311
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .500 (Adjusted R2 = .318)
31
Table 5.2a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
1.93
2.55
1.50
1.00
2.07
1.439
1.440
.577
-
1.363
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
1.00
5.00
2.00
2.13
.000
-
1.000
1.458
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
Total
4.00
1.33
2.00
-
.577
1.414
1
3
4
4
21
Total
2.00
2.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
2.00
2.00
2.00
-
-
.000
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
1.94
2.69
1.67
1.50
2.00
2.07
1.435
1.494
.778
.707
-
1.304
17
13
12
2
1
45
a Years.
b Years.
32
Table 5.2b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Contentious” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
21.477a
67.053
7.200
17.378
10.949
53.323
267.000
74.800
11
1
4
4
3
33
45
44
1.952
67.053
1.800
4.344
3.650
1.616
1.208
41.498
1.114
2.689
2.259
.320
.000
.367
.048
.100
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .287 (Adjusted R2 = .050)
33
Table 5.3a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
2.86
2.73
2.75
1.00
2.73
1.231
1.272
1.258
-
1.230
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.38
2.828
-
1.414
1.598
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
6.00
2.33
7.00
4.00
-
1.528
-
2.550
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
3.00
3.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
4.00
4.00
4.00
-
-
.000
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
3.06
2.85
2.33
3.67
4.00
2.87
1.519
1.214
1.303
3.055
-
1.485
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
34
Table 5.3b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Dramatic” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
37.905a
177.054
23.558
11.957
18.895
61.313
478.000
99.217
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
3.159
177.054
5.890
2.989
4.724
1.858
1.700
95.294
3.170
1.609
2.542
.112
.000
.026
.195
.058
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .382 (Adjusted R2 = .157)
35
Table 5.4a
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-Leaving” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (Descriptive Statistics)
Relationship Lengtha
Ageb
Mean
SD
N
1
18
19
20
21
Total
5.14
4.64
4.75
5.00
4.90
1.099
1.286
1.500
-
1.185
14
11
4
1
30
2
18
19
20
Total
5.50
2.00
3.60
3.88
2.121
-
1.517
1.808
2
1
5
8
3
18
20
21
Total
4.00
4.33
1.00
3.60
-
.577
-
1.517
1
3
1
5
4
21
Total
5.00
5.00
-
-
1
1
5
19
25
Total
4.00
5.00
4.50
-
-
.707
1
1
2
Total
18
19
20
21
25
Total
5.12
4.38
4.17
3.67
5.00
4.57
1.166
1.387
1.337
2.309
-
1.377
17
13
12
3
1
46
a Years.
b Years.
36
Table 5.4b
Two-Way ANOVA Results for Perceived Coach CS Variable “Impression-Leaving” and Athlete Age for Same Length of Coach-Athlete Relationship (F-statistics and Significance Levels)
Source
Type III Sum
of Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
p
Corrected Model
Intercept
LengRel
Age
LengRel * Age
Error
Total
Corrected Total
31.928a
273.940
17.434
12.789
11.270
53.376
1044.000
85.304
12
1
4
4
4
33
46
45
2.661
273.940
4.359
3.197
2.818
1.617
1.645
169.364
2.695
1.977
1.742
.127
.000
.048
.121
.164
Note. Significant results in bold.
a R2 = .374 (Adjusted R2 = .147).
37
Discussion
The present study explored the influence of coach CS on athletes, by testing for variables that either significantly correlated with or accounted for differences in athlete perceptions and preferences for coach CS. An important objective of the study was to approach the exploration from the perspective of communication research and constructs rather than sports psychology to better isolate the influence of communication related phenomena.
Perceived coach CS and perceived coach effectiveness.
The results from this study provide significant evidence that athlete perception of coach effectiveness correlates to their perception of particular CS variables. Athletes perceive effective head coaches to communicate in a style that is attentive, and to be good communicators in gen-eral. They also perceive effective coaches to be somewhat friendly, open, and to communicate in a way that leaves a good impression on others. To a lesser degree they may consider them to be dominant and animated as a communicator. Contentiousness is a communicator style that corre-lates inversely with an athlete’s perception of coach effectiveness. In other words, the more a coach communicates in a style that is contentious or argumentative, the less an athlete will per-ceive that coach as effective.
Collegiate female volleyball athletes likely have attentive parents or guardians who in-vested in and supported them through club and high school athletics. Because star high school or club athletes are more likely to be recruited to play in college, these athletes may have also had attentive high school and club coaches. They may be socialized to a culture where others attend to their needs and development. The perception of being a good communicator suggests a level of engagement and comfortableness of the athlete with the coach. Athletes may perceive such a 38
coach to give clear and constructive feedback that promotes athlete development, motivation, and satisfaction.
A related and important finding for this research question is the correlation between Communicator Image and the nine additional CS variables. Communicator Image relates to a person’s overall ability as a communicator (Norton, 1978; Norton, 1983; Norton & Pettegrew, 1977). In other words, a person with a good communicator image would be perceived to be a good communicator. Results from these correlation tests indicate that athletes perceive coaches who are good communicators to use styles of communicating that are attentive and friendly, that leave a good impression and are open somewhat, and relaxed and dominant to a lesser extent. As with perceptions of effectiveness, athletes did not perceive coaches to be good communica-tors who have styles that are somewhat contentious. Athletes did not perceive animated or dra-matic communication styles to be associated with being a good communicator.
Of particular note is the level of correlation between the perceptions of attentiveness, friendliness, communicator image, and coach effectiveness. These four variables have the high-est correlations of all pairings of CS variables, communicator image, and coach effectiveness. In order of strength of relationship: attentiveness and communicator image (p = .000, r = .755, r2 = .570), attentiveness and effectiveness (p = .000, r = .749, r2 = .561), communicator image and ef-fectiveness (p = .000, r = .738, r2 = .545), friendliness and communicator image (p = .000, r = .737, r2 = .543), and attentiveness and friendliness (p = .000, r = .731, r2 = .543). Each of these correlations is of moderate strength, with a coefficient of determination greater than 50% (r2 > .500). This indicates a fairly strong perceived relationship between attentiveness, friendliness, being a good communicator, and being an effective coach in the minds of the athletes in this study. 39
Communicating in ways that are contentious or argumentative will be perceived by ath-letes as indicators of a less effective coach. In addition to a negative and slight correlation with overall perception of coach effectiveness (r2 = .100), contentiousness also correlated negatively with each of the four individual scores for athlete perception of coach effectiveness: technical ef-fectiveness (p = .000, r = -.513, r2 = .263), non-technical (p = .021, r = -.335, r2 = .112), winning in general (p = .014, r = -.358, r2 = .128), and winning in the fall 2013 season (p = .004, r = -.417, r2 = .174). This suggests that athletes perceive a contentious style of communicating to be counterproductive to coach effectiveness in such areas as: designing effective practices, provid-ing technical feedback in practice and in competition, promoting team chemistry, building player confidence, and providing support both port on and off the court, etc. Additionally, contentious-ness had a significant negative correlation with perception of attentiveness (p = .001, r = -.467, r2 = .218), being a good communicator (p = .001, r = -.446, r2 = .199), and friendliness (p = .001, r = -.463, r2 = .214). Contentiousness had the strongest consistently negative correlation of all variables tested including communicator image and effectiveness.
There may be important insights to be considered from two of the CS variables that had no significant correlation with effectiveness at all. A more relaxed communicator style corre-lates with being a good communicator to a small extent, but it has no correlation to athlete per-ceptions of coach effectiveness. Also, coaches may adopt a dramatic style of communicating in an effort to make a strong impression on athletes. However, this communication style had no significant correlation with athlete perceptions of coach effectiveness, with being a good com-municator, or with leaving a good impression on others. Additionally, this style had significant and negative correlations with attentiveness and friendliness, the two variables most strongly correlated with effectiveness and being a good communicator. Coaches who cultivate dramatic, 40
contentious, or relaxed styles of communicating would perhaps be better served by developing styles more strongly and positively correlated with effectiveness such as attentiveness, friendli-ness, openness and communicating in ways that leave a good impression on others.
It is important to emphasize that these findings are for athlete perceptions of communica-tor style and effectiveness. No attempt was made to test for correlation of athlete perceptions with empirical measures of communicator styles displayed by coaches in their interactions with others, or with empirical measures of coach effectiveness. Therefore, it is possible that athlete perceptions do not accurately reflect reality. For example, coaches who are in reality very effec-tive may be perceived by their athletes to be more or less attentive than they actually are.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and coach-athlete relationship length.
Previous research has indicated differences in athlete perceptions and preferences for coaching behaviors and styles of communicating over the course of a single competitive season (Turman, 2003). RQ2a and RQ2b attempted to explore whether the length of a coach-athlete re-lationship expressed as the number of competitive seasons an athlete has played for a coach, might account for significant differences in perceived and preferred coach communicator styles.
The results indicated significant differences in perception of the Dominant style only. Athletes with differing lengths of relationship (having played for a coach 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5+ com-petitive seasons), had differing perceptions of their coach as communicating in dominant style. Further information regarding the direction of the differences in perception of these groups could not be obtained due to low sample numbers. This may indicate that the significant findings re-lated to perceptions of dominance and length of coach-athlete relationship may not be reliable, particularly in light of the fact that sample numbers were strongly skewed toward athletes with a shorter coach-athlete relationship length. 41
If perception of a dominant communicator style were to decrease as relationship length increased, this could be due to athlete transition to a more competitive athletic environment. With the pressures collegiate coaches face in producing and maintaining successful programs, their communicator styles could be perceived as more dominant than an athlete may have previ-ously encountered in a slightly more participative athletic environment in high school or club (Mallett & Côté, 2006). Such a difference in perception of a dominant coach communicator style might also be influenced by lack of familiarity and trust of newer athletes with their coach. If, however, perception of a dominant communicator style were to increase as length of relation-ship increased, this could indicate that athletes desire to be more independent and less directed by the coach as their skills and abilities develop over time. Of course, this is merely speculation. Further study is needed to determine the directional effects of length of coach-athlete relation-ship on perceptions of coach CS.
The study found no significant differences in preference for coach CS between groups of athletes with different lengths of the coach-athlete relationship. This suggests that athletes prefer that same coach communication styles regardless of degree of familiarity and experience with a coach. It suggests that athlete preferences for how their coaches communicate remain stable over their years of experience with a coach, and that increased experience with a coach does not change these preferences. It may be that other factors mediate an athlete’s choice to continue to work with a coach who communicates in a style that does not align with the athlete’s prefer-ences. These factors may include such things as: scholarships, camaraderie with teammates, etc.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and sex of the coach.
A series of independent sample t-tests resulted in several significant differences in per-ception of communicator style between athletes with male head coaches and athletes with female 42
head coaches. Athletes coached by males, perceived their coach to have a communicator style that was less dominant, friendlier, more relaxed, and less animated than athletes coached by fe-males. Athletes coached by females perceived their coach to have a communicator style that was more dominant, less friendly, less relaxed, and more animated than athletes coached by males.
Reasons for these differences in perception may be due to coaches shifting away from gender-typical communicator styles in response to the needs of their professional context (Borisoff & Chesebro, 2011; Carli, 2006; Eagly & Johnson, 1990). For example, a female coach may choose to cultivate a more dominant (typically viewed as masculine) communication style in order to better compete in a professional environment that is often viewed as masculine. Al-ternatively, male and female coaches may be exhibiting the same communicator styles but be perceived and assessed differently by athletes due to gender stereotypes (Wood, 2011). Still (2006) and Wood (2011) both note a common view that equates management and leadership ability to masculine communication styles. Carli (2006) suggests that females are perceived less favorably than males when they venture outside stereotypical gender roles. For example, it could be that a male coach and a female coach both exhibit a somewhat dominant communication style, but the female head coach is perceived to be even more dominant than the male head coach because she is exhibiting a style that is not typically considered feminine. This places female head coaches in a difficult position. If leadership competence is associated with masculine styles and behaviors, and females who exhibit these styles are looked upon less favorably, it may partly explain the prevalence of male head coaches appointed to lead female teams.
It is also important to note that there were no significant differences in perception of at-tentive, contentious, dramatic, open, and impression-leaving styles between athletes coached by males and those coached by females. There was also no difference in the perception of being a 43
good communicator. This may suggest that regardless of whether athletes are coached by males or females, they have the same perceptions for these five styles both in direction (either positive, neutral, or negative) and in relative strength of preference.
A second series of t-tests was conducted to examine differences in CS preferences for athletes coached by males and those coached by females. As with the tests of CS perceptions, significant differences in CS preferences for the two groups were found. Athletes coached by males indicated stronger preferences for head coaches to communicate in ways that are friendli-er, more attentive, more open, and more impression-leaving. They also more strongly prefer coaches who are better communicators than athletes coached by females.
There were no significant differences between the two groups on preferences for domi-nant, relaxed, contentious, dramatic, and animated styles. This may suggest that regardless of whether athletes are coached by males or females, they have the same preferences for these five styles both in direction (either positive, neutral, or negative) and in the strength of preference.
Ideally for athletes, preferences for coach CS would be mirrored in direction and strength of corresponding perceptions of the CS of their own head coach. Where significant differences exist in the present study, this is partially the case for only one style variable. Friendliness was the only CS for which athlete groups had significant differences in the same direction for both preference and perception. Athletes coached by males had a stronger perception of and prefer-ence for friendliness than did athletes coached by females. However, a comparison of the means indicates that both male and female coaches are less friendly overall than athletes prefer. Norton (1983) suggests that friendliness is a highly confirming style of communication that promotes the growth and security of others. While coach friendliness is important to both athlete groups, it 44
may be that female athletes attribute greater value to confirmation derived from the friendliness of male head coaches.
For attentive, open, impression-leaving, and communicator image style variables, there were significant differences in preferences between the two groups of athletes. In each case, ath-letes coached by males had stronger preferences for these style variables than athletes coached by females. But in each case, there were no differences in perception of these styles in male and female coaches. Therefore, for these particular styles it appears that both male and female coaches are communicating in ways that may not align with athlete preferences (males not enough, females too much).
No difference in preference is indicated for dominant, animated or relaxed styles of communication, but athletes perceive female coaches as more dominant and animated, and male coaches as more relaxed. This suggests that male coaches are too relaxed and not dominant or animated enough; and female coaches are too dominant, animated, and not relaxed enough for athletes.
Finally, in the case of dramatic and contentious styles, there were no significant differ-ences in preferences or perceptions between the two athlete groups. As these two styles typically have negative (contentious) or neutral-negative (dramatic) associations, likely both groups of athletes do not prefer these styles. In fact, though not significant, the means for preferences of these two styles are both quite low. Similarly, there appear to be no significant differences in perceptions of these two negative styles in male and female head coaches. And, the means for perception of these two styles, though not significant, are the lowest of all the CS variables test-ed. 45
Overall, the findings suggest significant differences in athletes’ perceptions of how male and female head coaches communicate. The reasons for these differences is a topic for future re-search, but may be related to gender stereotypes or efforts to counteract such stereotypes as dis-cussed above. When preferences are compared to perceptions, it appears that both male and fe-male coaches could modify their communicator styles to better align with those styles athletes favor. However, additional research would be needed to determine if such modifications would actually benefit athletes and teams.
Perceived coach CS and perceived personal/team performance.
Athlete perception of personal performance during the fall 2013 season correlated signif-icantly with perception of coach communicator style (RQ4a). Significant correlations were also found for athlete perception of team performance during the fall 2013 season (RQ4b). The find-ings suggest that athlete perception of coach CS is more strongly correlated with team perfor-mance and is manifested over a wider range of CS variables than it is with perception of personal performance. This suggests that as teams perform better, athletes perceive their coach to be bet-ter at communicating in ways that leave a good impression, are friendlier, more animated, indica-tive of being a good communicator, are more open and attentive, somewhat more dominant, and less contentious. Similarly, as coaches communicate in ways that reflect these communicator styles, athletes may perceive better team performance. These correlations indicate that there are coach communication styles that athletes may associate with better performance, and styles they may associate with poorer performance. It is interesting to speculate whether athletes may gauge their level of performance (individually or as a team) from the communication style cues of their head coach. For example, if a coach communicates in a contentious style, an athlete may inter-pret this as an indication that they (or their team) is not performing well. 46
Athletes may be more mindful of team performance than personal performance because positive team performance is the overarching goal in a team sport, with more visible and definite outcome measures. In a team sport such as volleyball, overall team performance supersedes in-dividual performance. Poor performance by one player may be offset by a team win, but it is un-likely that an outstanding performance by a single player will compensate for a team loss. Also, the mental focus needed for an individual athlete in a team sport to execute a skill in a competi-tive atmosphere may make her less aware of the way a coach is communicating in response to her personal performance than of the coach’s communication directed to other team members or to the team as a whole.
However, it is important to remember that the mean of the shared variance between CS variables significantly correlated with team performance is low to slight (four variables with r2 between .20 -.40 and four variables with r2 < .20). This indicates that more of the variation in an athlete perception of coach CS can be accounted for by influences other than perception of team performance, and conversely, more of the variation in athlete perception of team performance may be accounted for by influences other than perception of coach CS.
Overall, the results for RQ4a and RQ4b suggest that while perception of coach CS signif-icantly influences perception of performance, the influence is not particularly strong.
Perceived/preferred coach CS and athlete age.
Five significant differences were observed for perceptions of coach CS between athlete age groups with the same length of coach-athlete relationship. Test results were shown for Dif-ferences due to age were observed for dominant and contentious styles – although the nature of these differences was unclear. This suggests that some athlete age groups are more aware of and attuned to dominant and contentious coach communication styles. Differences due to length of 47
relationship were observed for dominant, dramatic, and impression-leaving styles. Again, it is unclear if the differences have directionality, such as more/less perception of these styles as length of relationship increases/decreases. This seems to suggest that an athlete’s familiarity or experience with their coach may mediate their awareness of or sensitivity to these particular communication styles. No differences in perception of CS were observed for the combined ef-fect of age and length of relationship.
These findings both confirm and contradict findings for RQ2a which examined percep-tions of coach CS and length of relationship only. In the case of both RQ2a and RQ5a, signifi-cant differences in perceptions of dominant styles were observed with regard to length of coach-athlete relationship. However, significant differences in perception of styles that are dramatic or that leave a good impression were observed in RQ5a but not in RQ2a. Additional research using larger sample numbers may be needed to clarify these findings.
Results for the two-way ANOVA which tested preferences for coach CS with respect to age and length of relationship, showed no significant differences between athlete age groups or those groups with different lengths of coach-athlete relationship. This would suggest that athlete preferences for how coaches communicate remains relatively stable as athletes increase in age and regardless of the familiarity or experience with a particular head coach. In other words, col-legiate athletes of all ages prefer similar styles of coach communication regardless of how long they have worked with particular coaches.
Limitations.
This study was affected by low sample numbers and responses that were skewed in the direction of younger athletes with shorter coach-athlete relationships. This may have been par-ticularly problematic for research questions involving athlete age or length of coach-athlete rela-48
tionship. Additionally, the sample may be subject to biases unique to the culture of the state from which it was taken. Using head coaches as gatekeepers was somewhat challenging. The researcher’s personal acquaintance with several of the head coaches and athletes involved in the survey may have heightened concerns about confidentiality. It may also have unduly influenced survey responses due to pressure athletes may have felt to participate. Although the online sur-vey format was convenient, it was subject to a relatively low response rate, which is not atypical of online surveys. Future researchers may want to approach compliance officers rather than head coaches to potentially boost sample numbers. They may also consider conducting similar sur-veys in person.
Future research.
Norton (1978) suggests that “communicator style is contingent upon context, situation, and time” and that “these three components to some extent substantially influence styles of communicating” (p. 110). The particular context of the present study involved female collegiate volleyball athletes who are predominantly citizens of the United States. With this in mind, the present study findings suggest several areas of possible future research. These include examina-tions of perceptions and preferences of both male and female athletes, examinations across mul-tiple competitive levels, multiple sports, and multiple nationalities. Changes in perceptions and preferences could be examined over the span of a single competitive season. Athlete perceptions could also be compared against empirical observations of coach CS as well as individual and team performance. Further examinations of how athlete perceptions and preferences for CS vary based on sex of the head coach may also be useful. Qualitative studies could be used to probe for deeper understanding of athlete perceptions of coach CS and the influence it has on their lives. 49
Practical Applications
The results of this study provide evidence of several significant correlations and differ-ences in athlete perception and preference for coach CS which may help coaches improve com-munication with their athletes.
Attentiveness and friendliness are key.
In terms of athlete perception of good communication ability and coach effectiveness, an attentive communication style is most important. As described in this study, attentive communi-cators tend to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what others have to say. Attentive communicators also deliberately react in such a way that others know they are being listened to. A friendly communication style is also important to perceived coach effectiveness and good communication. A friendly communicator is described in this study as one who usually demon-strates kindly interest and goodwill toward others, and is seldom hostile toward others.
Effective coaches are good communicators.
Athletes perceive effective coaches to be good communicators. Athletes associate good communicators with styles that are attentive and friendly, leave a good impression on others, are open, and not contentious; and are slightly relaxed and dominant. Due to evidence that CS ap-pears to correlate more strongly with perceptions of coach effectiveness than with perceptions of performance, it may be that particular communicator styles signal effectiveness that outweighs the ups and downs of athlete perceptions of performance.
Contentiousness is counterproductive.
Coaches who communicate in ways that are contentious are perceived by athletes to be not only poor communicators but also less effective coaches. In every instance of significant 50
findings for contentiousness in this study, the style was always perceived negatively. This style variable is defined as being quarrelsome, belligerent, and causing much interpersonal unrest.
Drama doesn’t get you anywhere.
Athletes do not perceive coaches who communicate with dramatic styles to be ineffective or poor communicators, but neither do they perceive them to be effective or good communica-tors. As defined in this study, dramatic communicators frequently exaggerate to emphasize a point, use very picturesque speech, and vocally act out what is being communicated. A dramatic style may not reflect negatively on a coach (as contentiousness does), but it also doesn’t foster athlete perceptions of effectiveness and good communication. Coaches would be better off cul-tivating styles with a more positive impact on athletes such as attentiveness and friendliness.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that coach communication styles do significantly in-fluence athlete perceptions and preferences. Given the importance of perception in understand-ing actual behavior (Montgomery and Norton, 1981), the results of this study suggest that future research is warranted for examinations of coach communicator style and its impact on athlete motivation, satisfaction, decision-making, performance, etc. The results also serve to encourage coaches to consider communication theory and skill development as part of their academic and professional training. This might include such things as the study of gender and communication, or how to adapt one’s communication style to the needs of a particular athletic context. Finally, this study provides evidence of significant insights available to athletics professionals and schol-ars through the perspective of communication research. Such research may increase understand-ing of the ways communication can be used to foster athlete development, improve athlete per-formance, and enhance the overall athletic experience. 51
Appendix A
Communicator Style Variables and Descriptive Paragraphs*
* From Norton & Pettegrew (1977).
CS Variable
Description
Dominant
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
Friendly
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person deliberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator appears to be. A person who is not conscious of any nervous mannerisms in his speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and col-lected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nervousness is relaxed.
Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a per-son may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who actively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to reflect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readi-ly reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him, this person is impression-leaving.
Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image. 52
Appendix B
Demographics of Female Collegiate Volleyball Programs in the State of Utah in 2013
Note. Data retrieved from each program’s athletic website, as of October 2013.
Program
Athletic
Association and Division
Coach Sex
No. Athletes 2013 Roster
2012
Conference
Affiliation
2012
Conference Rank
Brigham Young University
NCAA-DI
M
18
WCC
1/9
Dixie State University
NCAA-DII
F
18
Pac West
9/14
Salt Lake Community College
NJCAA-DI
F
14
SWAC
2/6
Snow College
NJCAA-DI
M
18
SWAC
4/6
Southern Utah University
NCAA-DI
F
15
Big Sky
8/11
University of Utah
NCAA-DI
F
15
PAC-12
9/12
Utah State University
NCAA-DI
M
15
WAC
1/10
Utah State University–Eastern
NJCAA-DI
F
14
SWAC
5/6
Utah Valley University
NCAA-DI
M
15
Great West
1/5
Weber State University
NCAA-DI
M
17
Big Sky
10/11
Westminster College
NAIA-DI
F
14
Frontier
7/9 53
Appendix C
Head Coach Recruitment Email
Dear Coach _____________________,
My name is Sheryl Peterson and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Weber State University. For my master’s thesis I am conducting research on athlete perception of head coach communicator style – among collegiate female volleyball athletes participating with the eleven pro-grams in the State of Utah. Would you be willing to have your student-athletes participate in a 15-minute, anonymous, online survey to share their views and opinions for this study? No identifying in-formation about the survey participants, coaches, or institutional affiliations will be disclosed in the re-search findings.
If you are willing to have your student-athletes participate in this research study, would you please:
1. Forward this email to each student-athlete from your Fall 2013 roster.
2. Send a group text message to alert your athletes to the survey email, and encourage them to click on the survey link and complete the survey.
The survey link is www.
I am extremely grateful for your time and willingness to help me with this research study. Once the sur-vey data has been analyzed, I would be happy to forward to you a general description of the study find-ings in aggregate. If you have any questions, you are more than welcome to contact me or my thesis advisor – our contact information is listed below.
Sheryl Peterson Dr. Sarah Steimel
peterson@seis.utah.edu sarahsteimel@weber.edu
801-362-1387 (cell) 801-626-6535 (office) 54
Appendix D
Informed Consent and Online Survey Questions
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this research study. Through this online survey I hope to explore athlete perceptions (thoughts, feelings, and opinions) of how their coaches communicate. To participate in this study you must meet the following criteria: (1) You must be at least 18 years old, and (2) You must have been listed on the Fall 2013 roster of a women’s volleyball program at a college or university within the State of Utah. If you DO NOT meet the above criteria, you do not qualify for this study and you can exit the online sur-vey now. If you DO meet the participation criteria, please read through the remainder of this infor-mation. As a participant in this survey, you understand: • You are free to discontinue the survey at any time without adversely affecting your relationship with the researcher, or Weber State University. • The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete and will ask you questions about your perceptions and preferences for the communication style of head coaches. • Your participation is anonymous and your name will not be collected. • Your responses will be kept completely confidential. The only individual with access to your responses will be the researcher. All responses will be kept on a password protected computer belonging to the researcher. Survey responses will be used as data in a published graduate thesis, but will not personally identify you, your coach, or your university in any way. • There are no known risks for participating in this study. There are similarly no known benefits for par-ticipating in this study. However, your participation may contribute to a better understanding of the in-fluence of communication style in general and in athletics in particular. • You may ask any questions concerning this research study and have those questions answered before agreeing to participate or after the study is complete. Feel free to contact the researcher, Sheryl Peter-son at (801) 362-1387 (cell/text) or peterson@seis.utah.edu. You may also contact the principal investi-gator, Dr. Sarah Steimel at sarahsteimel@weber.edu, or (801) 626-6535. • If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, that have not been answered by this statement or if you would like to report any concerns about this study, you may contact the Weber State University Institutional Review Board at (801) 626-6812. 55
By checking this box you certify that you meet the criteria specified above, have voluntarily decided to participate in the survey, and that you have read and understand the information presented above. After checking the box, please proceed to Survey Section I.
Survey Section I
Please answer the following 10 questions as they pertain to the communication style
of your head coach during the Fall 2013 volleyball season.
1. Dominant
This attribute refers to the tendency to come on strong in most social situations. A person who takes charge of things with others is dominant; a person who generally speaks very frequently in social situations is dominant.
My head coach communicates in a Dominant way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Friendly
This attribute refers to a person who usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others. This person is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by others.
My head coach communicates in a Friendly way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person de-liberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
My head coach communicates in an Attentive way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator appears to be. A person who is not conscious of any nervous mannerisms in his/her speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and col-lected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nerv-ousness is relaxed.
My head coach communicates in a Relaxed way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a person
may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
My head coach communicates in a Contentious way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
My head coach communicates in a Dramatic way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who ac-tively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to re-flect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
My head coach communicates in an Animated way: 57
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8. Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readily reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
My head coach communicates in an Open way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9. Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he/she says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him/her, this person is impression-leaving.
My head coach communicates in an Impression-Leaving way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he/she has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image.
My head coach has a good Communicator Image:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
58
Survey Section II
Please answer the following 10 questions according to how you prefer a head coach to com-municate.
11. Dominant
This attribute refers to the tendency to come on strong in most social situations. A person who takes charge of things with others is dominant; a person who generally speaks very frequently in social situations is dominant.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Dominant way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12. Friendly
The friendly communicator is encouraging to people, acknowledges others’ contributions, openly expresses admiration, and tends to be tactful, usually demonstrates kindly interest and goodwill toward others, is seldom hostile towards others and is usually regarded with high esteem by oth-ers.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Friendly way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. Attentive
This attribute refers to how alert a person is as a communicator. An attentive communicator tends to be encouraging to others, listening carefully to what they have to say. Such a person de-liberately reacts in such a way that people know they are being listened to.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Attentive way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
59
14. Relaxed
This attribute refers to how much at ease a communicator tends to be. A person who is not con-scious of any nervous mannerisms in his speech is relaxed; a person who is calm and collected when talking is relaxed; a person whose rhythm or flow of speech is not affected by nervousness is relaxed.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Relaxed way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15. Contentious
This attribute refers to a person who constantly quarrels and disputes with others. Such a person may be thought of as belligerent and the cause of much interpersonal unrest.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Contentious way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16. Dramatic
This attribute refers to how verbally alive a person is. A person whose speech tends to be very picturesque is dramatic; a person who frequently exaggerates to emphasize a point is dramatic; a person who vocally acts out what is being communicated is dramatic.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in a Dramatic way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17. Animated
This attribute refers to how nonverbally active a person is as a communicator. A person who ac-tively uses facial expressions and physical gestures is animated. A person whose eyes tend to re-flect a great deal of what they are feeling is animated.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Animated way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18. Open
This attribute refers to how self-disclosing a person is as a communicator. A person who readily reveals personal things or openly expresses feelings and emotions is an open communicator; when other people generally know the person’s emotional state even if the person does not say anything, the person is open.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Open way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19. Impression-Leaving
This attribute refers to how affecting a person is as a communicator. What this person says as well as how he/she says it often leaves an impression. If people react to this person when they first meet and tend to remember him/her, this person is impression-leaving.
I prefer a head coach to communicate in an Impression-Leaving way:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20. Communicator Image
This attribute refers to how good a communicator a person is. If a person finds it easy to talk on a one-to-one basis or in small groups with strangers, he/she has a good communicator image. A person who finds it easy to maintain a conversation with a member of the opposite sex has a good communicator image.
I prefer a head coach to have a good Communicator Image:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Survey Section III
61
21. The head coach I played for during the Fall 2013 season is:
Male
Female
22. Including the Fall 2013 season, I have played _____________________seasons for my head coach - please include all club and college seasons you may have played for this coach.
One season
Two seasons
Three seasons
Four seasons
Five or more seasons
23. My head coach is effective at the technical aspects of the game (understands basic skills and strategy, designs effective practices, provides technical feedback in practice and in competition, etc.):
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24. My head coach is effective at the non-technical aspects of the game (promotes good team chemistry, fosters mental toughness, builds player confidence, facilitates individual and team goal setting, provides support on and off the court, etc.):
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25. In general, I feel my head coach is effective at developing a winning team:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26. Considering everything that impacted our team, and regardless of our win/loss record, I feel my head coach was effective during the Fall 2013 season:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27. Given everything I experienced, I feel I performed well during the Fall 2013 season:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28. Given everything we experienced, I feel my team performed well during the Fall 2013 sea-son:
Strongly Disagree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
29. During the Fall 2013 season I played for (check one):
Brigham Young University
Dixie State University
Salt Lake Community College
Snow College
Southern Utah University
University of Utah
Utah State University
Utah State University – Eastern
Utah Valley University
Weber State University
Westminster College
30. My year in school during the Fall 2013 season was:
Freshman (redshirt or otherwise)
Sophomore
Junior
Senior (fifth year or otherwise)
31. My age as of the date of this survey is:
18
19
20
21
22
23 63
24
25+
To complete the survey and have your responses recorded, please click “Submit” below.
If you have any questions or concerns you are welcome to contact:
Sheryl Peterson (student researcher) Dr. Sarah Steimel (principal investigator)
peterson@seis.utah.edu sarahsteimel@weber.edu
(801) 362-1387 (text/cell) (801) 626-6535 (office)
64
References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal national study: Thirty five year update, 1977-2012. Retrieved from http://www.acostacarpenter.org/AcostaCarpenter2012.pdf
Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring rela-tionships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30(4), 377-392.
Baird Jr, J. E., & Bradley, P. H. (1979). Styles of management and communication: A compara-tive study of men and women. Communication Monographs, 46(2), 101-111.
Bednar, D. A. (1982). Relationships between communicator style and managerial performance in complex organizations: A field study. The Journal of Business Communication, 19(4), 51-76.
Bednar, D. A., & Brandenburg, M. (1984). Relationships between communicator style and per-ceived teaching effectiveness in management classes. Academy of Management Proceed-ings, 1, 111-115.
Borisoff, D., & Chesebro, J. W. (2011). Communicating power and gender. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Carli, L. L. (2006). Gender issues in workplace groups: Effects of gender and communication style on social influence. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communica-tion at work (pp. 69-83). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Limited.
Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45. 65
Comadena, M. E., Semlak, W. D., & Escott, M. D. (1992). Communicator style and teacher ef-fectiveness: Adult learners versus traditional undergraduate students. Communication Re-search Reports, 9(1), 57-63.
Condra, M., & Hudson, C. (1996). The study of communication as preparation for law school: A survey interview study. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 3, 155-166.
Côté, J., Yardley, J., Hay, J., Sedgwick, W., & Baker, J. (1999). An exploratory examination of the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport. Avante, 5(3), 82-92.
Dion, P. A. & Notarantonio, E. M. (1992). Salesperson communication style: The neglected di-mension in sales performance. The Journal of Business Communication, 29(1), 63-77.
Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/chip_docs/11
Gordon, R. D. (1987). The communicator style of one championship coach. Perceptual and Mo-tor Skills, 65(2), 662.
Hastie, P. A. (1993). Coaching preferences of high school girl volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1309-1310.
Hastie, P. A. (1995). Factors affecting coaching preferences for secondary school volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 347-350.
Henning, Z. (2010). Teaching with style to manage student perceptions: The effects of socio-communicative style and teacher credibility on student affective learning. Communica-tion Research Reports, 27(1), 58-67. 66
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed), Advances in Sport Psychology (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horvath, C. W. (1995). Biological origins of communicator style. Communication Quarterly, 43(4), 394-407.
Kassing, J. W. & Pappas, M. E. (2007). “Champions are built in the off season”: An exploration of high school coaches’ memorable messages. Human Communication, 10(4), 537-546.
Lyle, J. (2002). Sports coaching concepts: A framework for coaches’ behavior. London: Routledge.
Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on the characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314-327.
Mallett, C. & Côté, J. (2006). Beyond winning and losing: guidelines for evaluating high per-formance coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 213-221.
Montgomery, B. M. & Norton, R. W. (1981). Sex differences and similarities in communicator style. Communication Monographs, 48, 121-132.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2012). NCAA sports sponsorship and participation rates report: Student-athlete participation 1981-1982 – 2011-12. Retrieved from http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2013.pdf
Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 99-112.
Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Norton, R. W., & Miller, L. D. (1975). Dyadic perception of communication style. Communica-tion Research, 2(1), 50-67. 67
Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. Commu-nication Yearbook, 4, 565-579.
Norton, R. W., & Pettegrew, L. S. (1977). Communicator style as an effect determinant of at-traction. Communication Research, 4(3), 257-282.
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 105-130.
Potter, W. J., & Emanuel, R. (1990). Communication styles and their relationship to achieve-ment. Communication Education, 39, 234-249.
Sallinen-Kuparinen, A. (1992). Teacher communicator style. Communication Education, 41, 153-166.
Scott, M. D., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Student perceptions of instructor communication behav-iors and their relationship to student evaluation. Communication Education, 30(1), 44-53.
Still, L. V. (2006). Gender, leadership and communication. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication at work (pp. 183-194). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
The National Federation of State High School Associations. (n.d.). 2012-13 High school athletics participation survey results. In 2013-14 NFHS Handbook_pgs52-70 (1).pdf. Retrieved from http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=3282
Turman, P. D. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and perceptions of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education 52(2), 73-86.
Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72(2), 162-179. 68
USA Volleyball. (n.d.). 2011 Fact sheet: By the numbers. Retrieved from http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/About-Us/Corporate-Reports/USA_Volleyball_by_the_Numbers_2011.pdf
USA Volleyball. (n.d.). 2012 Annual report. Retrieved from http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Volleyball/About-Us/Corporate-Reports/2012 Annual Report 2.pdf
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). The pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wood, J. T. (2011). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.